What happens to the old analogue transmitters?
cb
I was just wondering, when analogue television is switched off in the UK,
what are the old analogue transmitters going to be used for? Surely they
could perhaps modify the existing analogue transmitters so they can transmit
digital signals instead, which will open up digital TV to a lot more people.
As I understand it, there is thousands of analogue transmitters around the
country, and less than a hundred digital transmitters. If the government
wants digital TV to take off they really need to consider the thousands of
people that are completely unable to receive any kind of digital signal.
So what will happen to the old transmitters? Will be interesting to find
out.
CB
Aztech
They stick digital exciters on them.
Az.
The Technical Manager
> Hi all
>
> I was just wondering, when analogue television is switched off in the UK,
> what are the old analogue transmitters going to be used for? Surely they
> could perhaps modify the existing analogue transmitters so they can transmit
> digital signals instead, which will open up digital TV to a lot more people.
Its possible and they could certainly retain existing parts like masts and
power supplies. Converting analogue transmitter electronics into digital
transmitter electronics is rather like converting a gas cooker to electric.
Therefore most analogue equipment will end up in the scrapyard unless it is
left in situ if extra space is not required. BT sometimes did this with their
old exchanges to save money. Most of the strowger in Romford exchange is still
in place.
> As I understand it, there is thousands of analogue transmitters around the
> country, and less than a hundred digital transmitters. If the government
> wants digital TV to take off they really need to consider the thousands of
> people that are completely unable to receive any kind of digital signal.
Satellite and cable. IMO there is little point in bothering with digital
terrestrial apart from local short range broadcasting.
> So what will happen to the old transmitters? Will be interesting to find
> out.
I suppose you have your eyes set on some of the equipment that might be thrown
out !!
>
> CB
The Technical Manager
> Hi all
>
> I was just wondering, when analogue television is switched off in the UK,
> what are the old analogue transmitters going to be used for?
At the rate at which things are going analogue television will never be
switched off. After all is there a real need to free up the spectrum for
anything ?
There are simply too many old fogeys who lovingly polish their 1976 Decca and
stubbornly refuse to involve themselves in digital technology.
Aztech
news:3C4DA44E...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> cb wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > I was just wondering, when analogue television is switched off in the
UK,
> > what are the old analogue transmitters going to be used for?
>
> At the rate at which things are going analogue television will never be
> switched off. After all is there a real need to free up the spectrum for
> anything ?
Yes... the spectrum is needed for a decent digital network, how about 8K
SFN's with a shared local mux?
Az.
Jamie Powell
> At the rate at which things are going analogue television will never be
> switched off. After all is there a real need to free up the spectrum for
> anything ?
As far as I know, the spectrum currently used by analogue TV was sold
off by the Labour government a couple of years ago for "mobile phone
usage". It was mysteriously snapped up by BT at a cost of billions,
plunging BT into debt and allowing the government to pay off large
chunks of the national debt - something they're always glad to boast
about it seems.
There are two obvious problems with this:
1. There are already more mobile phones than there are *people* in the
UK, so I don't really see why there should ever be a need for more
airspace for them than there is already.
2. Digital terrestrial TV doesn't work properly! So unless people want
to put up with constant picture freezes, they will either have to get
cable or satellite TV and alot of people won't want either of those.
Jamie.
Aztech
news:86c713b4.02012...@posting.google.com...
> The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<3C4DA44E...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
>
> > At the rate at which things are going analogue television will never be
> > switched off. After all is there a real need to free up the spectrum for
> > anything ?
>
> As far as I know, the spectrum currently used by analogue TV was sold
> off by the Labour government a couple of years ago for "mobile phone
> usage". It was mysteriously snapped up by BT at a cost of billions,
> plunging BT into debt and allowing the government to pay off large
> chunks of the national debt - something they're always glad to boast
> about it seems.
The 3G frequencies that sold for £25b are in and around ~2000MHz, which is
quite a bit above the UHF broadcast spectrum.
http://www.spectrumauctions.gov.uk/documents/multimedia/images/Image2.gif
Az.
The Technical Manager
Some people are luddites. VHF 405 line broadcasts were switched off and few complained so why not analogue UHF as
well.
Don Pearce
There is a big difference. 625 was far better quality than 405, and it
had colour. Digital is of vastly inferior quality to analogue - hence
the resistance.
d
_____________________________
Telecommunications consultant
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Roger Mellie
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:kujt4u85eb7lgrc0o...@4ax.com...
> Digital is of vastly inferior quality to analogue
Is it really ? Can you justify this statement ?
I would argue that, under equivalent reception conditions, digital is as good
as, if not better than analogue. Please remember that digital transmissions
are much lower in power and most often it's people in fringe reception areas
that complain when they can't get perfect digital pictures. If you are
receiving digital transmissions at the same signal strength as good analogue
ones and you still get inferior quality, then you have a serious problem with
your installation.
Nick Jeffery
news:a2mo5e$bgb$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> I would argue that, under equivalent reception conditions, digital is as
good
> as, if not better than analogue. Please remember that digital
transmissions
> are much lower in power and most often it's people in fringe reception
areas
> that complain when they can't get perfect digital pictures. If you are
> receiving digital transmissions at the same signal strength as good
analogue
> ones and you still get inferior quality, then you have a serious problem
with
> your installation.
The only reason I watch digital television is if there is a widescreen
programme being broadcast. The bitrates used by the BBC and ITV on their
multiplexes are so low that I revert to watching by analogue for 4:3
programming.
Nick.
--
ni...@durge.org http://wickedbass.net
Mobile: 07941 349 444 Fax: 07989 382 621
The Purple FM Breakfast Show - Starts 1st Feb at 7am!
Nicky and Lauren. At Breakfast. 107 FM. Durham.
Stephen Neal
Don Pearce wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:43:56 +0000, The Technical Manager
><tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Jamie Powell wrote:
>>
>>> The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<3C4DA44E...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
>>>
>>Some people are luddites. VHF 405 line broadcasts were switched off and
few complained so why not analogue UHF as
>>well.
>
>There is a big difference. 625 was far better quality than 405, and it
>had colour. Digital is of vastly inferior quality to analogue - hence
>the resistance.
Sorry - bit of a major generalisation there. Can't agree with it.
Digital broadcasts are capable of excellent pictures - with the benefits of
component colour rendition, a clean luminance path and anamorphic 16:9
pictures. All of these are major advantages over analogue PAL / NTSC /
SECAM.
Digital transmissions can be poor, analogue transmissions can be poor.
Good digital transmissions, in my opinion, are better than good analogue
when it comes to the final viewed picture.
I find it difficult to watch PAL analogue now, the 12F12/14L12 picture shape
and chroma subcarrier artefacts are increasingly annoying to me.
Steve
The Technical Manager
Is digital terrestrial really needed as a replacement for analogue terrestrial ? I still can't see what is wrong with
satellite or cable.
IMO satellite dishes look a darn sight neater than UHF aerials. Infact if satellite dishes were around 40 years ago
and Yagi aerials were invented today they would probably be banned by most councils for being visually obtrusive.
Ashley Booth
"Roger Mellie" <roger....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a2mo5e$bgb$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
I get a reasonable analogue picture on all channels from Crystal Palace here
in Windsor. However after spending £170 on a new aerial and pole my digital
signal is still poor. There are two tower cranes almost in line of site
between me and the transmitter.
These seem to be causing some of my problems. The C5 mux often is
unwatchable with many seconds of frozen or blank screen.
Given the choice of slightly noisy and reflective analogue pictures and
blocky freezing digital pictures, which one would you choose?
At 30 miles from Crystal Palace I don't think this can be classed as a
fringe area.
Ashley
Don Pearce
I'm speaking from the point of view of an engineer who has designed
and installed several TV networks (Hong Kong, the middle East) in both
analogue and digital formats. I can judge picture quality on the
normal CCIR scale to an accuracy of +/- .2 most of the time on an
analogue picture by eye. My TV at home runs from an antenna with good
line-of-sight to Crystal Palace - and no ghosts. I need to attenuate
the signal to prevent intermodulation. PAL I, when it is good, is
about as good as you can get.
Certainly the quality of the analogue signal has deteriorated over the
last few years, but that has happened as a result of the amount of
digital processing in the signal path. Certainly most sports have
suffered dreadfully - cricket balls disappearing when they are hit,
racing cars leaping across the screen in a series of jumps. These are
all obvious digital artefacts that everybody in the industry accepts -
and they didn't happen with analogue.
As for the "last mile" home delivery, compression means that a great
deal of fine detail has disappeared. Primary signal processing has
caused that. When compressing, you need a disproportional amount of
data to provide it, so you don't get it. Also, for reasons I can't
understand, there is a constant soup of noise behind digital pictures.
Finally, probably in an attempt to recover some sharpness, all the
digital pictures I have seen exhibit what looks very much like ringing
around edges.
Things will of course never improve. The pressure is on (in digital
radio as well) to cram more programmes into the multiplexes. That
means a constant downward spiral of quality.
But I have to say most people don't care. Look at the average analogue
TV in the average house and there will be ghosts; the colour control
will be wound up to just short of luminous. So people get pretty much
what they deserve. Maybe digital will suit them after all.
Don Pearce
It is not possible to watch good digital TV in the UK, because
everything is compressed to the point where it is far inferior to
analogue.
Admittedly, given a viewing location where analogue reception is poor,
digital will be better. But that is not exactly saying much for
digital.
Don Pearce
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
Then where would all the pigeons sit?
Tony Sayer
>
>Things will of course never improve. The pressure is on (in digital
>radio as well) to cram more programmes into the multiplexes. That
>means a constant downward spiral of quality.
>
>But I have to say most people don't care. Look at the average analogue
>TV in the average house and there will be ghosts; the colour control
>will be wound up to just short of luminous. So people get pretty much
>what they deserve. Maybe digital will suit them after all.
>
>d
>
>_____________________________
>Telecommunications consultant
>http://www.pearce.uk.com
Not in ours there isn't. The best piccys we get are still on analogue
and this from ITV Anglia when its local output, and the local Narwich
BBC the rest of the time I swear our TV is more worthy than what its
being fed with!...
Six year young B&O M6000 ....BTW
--
Tony Sayer
Bancom Communications Ltd U.K. Tel +44 1223 566577 Fax +44 1223 566588
P.O. Box 280, Cambridge, England, CB2 2DY E-Mail to...@bancom.co.uk
TL447-553 52* 10.57'N 0* 6.96 E
Jamie Powell
> >Some people are luddites. VHF 405 line broadcasts were switched off and few complained so why not analogue UHF as
> >well.
>
> There is a big difference. 625 was far better quality than 405, and it
> had colour. Digital is of vastly inferior quality to analogue - hence
> the resistance.
I agree. But analogue TV is all sourced from MPEG digital feeds anyway
now so there isn't much diffence - they both look awful.
Thank goodness for German satellite TV :-)
Jamie.
Stephen Neal
Jamie Powell wrote in message
<86c713b4.0201...@posting.google.com>...
On analogue satellite? Doesn't the FM noise on the chroma get on your
nerves - especially with those lovely German super-chroma pictures :-)
(Analogue satellite = FM vision modulation. FM modulation has a triangular
noise spectrum - meaning more noise on the higher frequencies than lower -
meaning the relatively HF PAL subcarrier is much noisier than would be the
case on terrestrial AM - hence analogue PAL satellite often suffers from
noisy chroma. I certainly wasn't impressed with analogue satellite
transmissions on a reasonably high-spec Echostar system a few years back)
Steve
>
>Jamie.
Jamie Powell
> On analogue satellite? Doesn't the FM noise on the chroma get on your
> nerves - especially with those lovely German super-chroma pictures :-)
Nowhere near as much as MPEG artefacts do, although I recognize that
it doesn't look as good as the "proper" terrestrial PAL transmissions
in the UK used to.
The main problem is that German isn't my first language, but I do know
enough to get by when we go there on holiday.
The increased sharpness, detail and life-like tracking of movement far
makes up for the slight grain and combing. And the latter isn't half
as pronounced as a UK pal->mpeg->pal converted transmission, which
ends up having combing added twice over. We've had this conversation
before... :-)
Jamie.
Stephen Neal
news:<a2n20i$f9p$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>The increased sharpness, detail and life-like tracking of movement far
>makes up for the slight grain and combing. And the latter isn't half
>as pronounced as a UK pal->mpeg->pal converted transmission, which
>ends up having combing added twice over. We've had this conversation
>before... :-)
>
It is interesting to see that different people find different artefacts
annoying. Same arguments seem to apply with 100Hz TVs. I can't watch the
things (even the latest Sonys look better to me in DRC50 not DRC100) - yet
other people swear by them!
I will agree that PAL->MPEG->PAL is horrid - and I don't much like
PAL->MPEG->RGB. Where I enjoy digital is YUV->MPEG2->RGB where there is no
PAL at all! But as you say - we've had this conversation before!
Steve
>Jamie.
Aztech
news:a2mpv8
<snip>
> Digital transmissions can be poor, analogue transmissions can be poor.
>
> Good digital transmissions, in my opinion, are better than good analogue
> when it comes to the final viewed picture.
>
> I find it difficult to watch PAL analogue now, the 12F12/14L12 picture
shape
> and chroma subcarrier artefacts are increasingly annoying to me.
>
Putting the MPEG2 quality discussions aside, what about our poor 2K COFDM
encoding, now that genuinely is annoying, is it really acceptable that
people should get picture freezes every time somebody switches on a
fluorescent light or the central heating pump kicks in (or even the
neighbours heating in some cases), as long as we have 2K the DTV system will
appear inferior in terms of robustness compared to PAL. Of course people
will argue that a new aerial and double-screened cable will sort that out,
however if people get perfectly good PAL pictures and then switch to DTT and
suffer all the electrical impulse problems with 2K, it's not really a good
argument.
The MUSICAM sound can quite clearly be heard to be inferior to NICAM and
even destroys matrixed surround sound, yet they have no discrete
multichannel system to replace it, nor are they planning one.
Also, Teletext is old and slow but very useful, MHEG is new and slow and
completely hopeless and carries little content, it's certainly not a clear
improvement. Who on earth thought a multilayered menu system could
completely replace a simple three digit number system.
How about a PDC replacement? I'm hoping that's just a short-term absence
until the EPG's and digital recording is perfected for consumer products.
Our DTT system was rushed and it's clearly rough round the edges.
Az.
charles.hope
> Some people are luddites. VHF 405 line broadcasts were switched off and
> few complained so why not analogue UHF as well.
a former BBC Director General wrote, in his autobiography, "The British
public are the greatest connoisseurs of the obsolete in the world."
He was referring to the "great wavelength changes" of 1978, but I'm sure
it still applies.
charles.hope
Some landlords ban dishes, portables don't work with them and there are
places where it is impossible to receive from satellite.
Stephen Neal
charles.hope wrote in message <4afd917b7ac...@argonet.co.uk>...
Agreed - and call me paranoid - but I'd prefer my TV to be available
independent of a satellite network operated by a company based in
Luxembourg, and encrypted / EPGed using a proprietary system operated by a
commercial company.
I think we do have to find a way of making DTT work if we are to switch off
analogue - DCab and DSat are nice additions - but not replacements for
terrestrial free-to-air transmissions.
Steve
>
>
Anthony
> independent of a satellite network operated by a company based in
> Luxembourg, and encrypted / EPGed using a proprietary system operated by a
> commercial company.
I wonder what would happen if Bin Laden's cronies decided to blow-up
Betzdorf? Can the Astra satellites be controlled and uplinked from another
site just in case something like this were to happen? Do they have
contingency (sp?) plans for things like this? I guess Eutelsat would have a
field day!
Nick Jeffery
news:a2nmt1$12qcda$1...@ID-98017.news.dfncis.de...
> I wonder what would happen if Bin Laden's cronies decided to blow-up
> Betzdorf? Can the Astra satellites be controlled and uplinked from
another
> site just in case something like this were to happen? Do they have
> contingency (sp?) plans for things like this? I guess Eutelsat would have
a
> field day!
I was under the impression that UK broadcasters uplinked to Astra from
Crawley Court?
Certainly, Astra Analogue used to have a showreel running on their empty
transponders (probably going back about 10 years now). They definitely
mentioned a uplink station in London, as well as many other European major
cities.
Quite whether the satellites could be 'controlled' from these locations or
not, I'm completely unaware.
Mark Carver
> charles.hope wrote in message <4afd917b7ac...@argonet.co.uk>...
>Some landlords ban dishes, portables don't work with them and there are
>places where it is impossible to receive from satellite.
There are, and IMHO always will be, more places that cannot receive
an adequate DTT signal. I cannot see in this new 'market' driven world
the same effort going into providing DTT to "100%" of the UK popoulation,
as has been the case with analogue TV transmissions.
Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
> call me paranoid - but I'd prefer my TV to be available
> independent of a satellite network operated by a company based in
> Luxembourg, and encrypted / EPGed using a proprietary system operated by a
> commercial company.
Add that to the fact that all it would take is a bit of space debris is hit one
or
more of the Astra satellites and it's "goodbye". Mind you I'm much more worried
by a slightly larger rock hitting the ground, then it's "goodbye everyone". I've
been watching too many Horizon/Equinox programmes again :-(
Mark Carver
"Anthony" <a...@sesamestreet.com> wrote in message news:a2nmt1$12qcda$1...@ID-98017.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Betzdorf? Can the Astra satellites be controlled and uplinked from another
> site just in case something like this were to happen? Do they have
> contingency (sp?) plans for things like this? I guess Eutelsat would have a
> field day!
Astra have a 'standby' uplink site, somewhere else. Most UK channels
are uplinked by either Sky from their site near Southampton, or NTL from
sites at Winchester, Croydon, and Newman St W1.
cashaw
> There are, and IMHO always will be, more places that cannot receive
> an adequate DTT signal. I cannot see in this new 'market' driven world
> the same effort going into providing DTT to "100%" of the UK popoulation,
> as has been the case with analogue TV transmissions.
There were similar problems/concerns when the switchover from 405
to 625 occured. I've seen 'pre-launch' documentation of the 625 service
which claimed that the coverage from the transmitters would be equivelent
to that of the 405 line services. Unfortunetely this didn't take into account
the higher frequencies, line of sight required to get a good, non-ghosting
picture and hence the need for all the additional relays.
DTT seems to be suffering from a similar problem...
The Technical Manager
> In article <3C4EE4ED...@niobiumfive.co.uk>,
> The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Is digital terrestrial really needed as a replacement for analogue
> > terrestrial ? I still can't see what is wrong with satellite or cable.
>
> > IMO satellite dishes look a darn sight neater than UHF aerials. Infact
> > if satellite dishes were around 40 years ago and Yagi aerials were
> > invented today they would probably be banned by most councils for being
> > visually obtrusive.
>
> Some landlords ban dishes,
Because they are stingy outdated sods.
> portables don't work with them
How many people have you ever seen using a pocket television ?
> and there are places where it is impossible to receive from satellite.
Like where ? The Scottish Highlands require large dishes and can't access
some of the fringe satellites not aimed at Britain like Arabsat.
The Technical Manager
> charles.hope wrote in message <4afd917b7ac...@argonet.co.uk>...
> >In article <3C4EE4ED...@niobiumfive.co.uk>,
> > The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Is digital terrestrial really needed as a replacement for analogue
> >> terrestrial ? I still can't see what is wrong with satellite or cable.
> >
> >> IMO satellite dishes look a darn sight neater than UHF aerials. Infact
> >> if satellite dishes were around 40 years ago and Yagi aerials were
> >> invented today they would probably be banned by most councils for being
> >> visually obtrusive.
> >
> >Some landlords ban dishes, portables don't work with them and there are
> >places where it is impossible to receive from satellite.
>
> Agreed - and call me paranoid - but I'd prefer my TV to be available
> independent of a satellite network operated by a company based in
> Luxembourg, and encrypted / EPGed using a proprietary system operated by a
> commercial company.
I'd prefer my TV to be available independent of the BBC which is the
mouthpiece of NuLab.
>
> I think we do have to find a way of making DTT work if we are to switch off
> analogue - DCab and DSat are nice additions - but not replacements for
> terrestrial free-to-air transmissions.
I presume you enjoy paying a licence fee.
>
>
> Steve
>
> >
> >
Jamie Powell
> Certainly, Astra Analogue used to have a showreel running on their empty
> transponders (probably going back about 10 years now). They definitely
> mentioned a uplink station in London, as well as many other European major
> cities.
Those showreels are back on now, being carried on several of the
analogue transponders that Sky TV used to use.
Jamie.
Ashley Booth
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C4FEBF0...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
>
> Like where ? The Scottish Highlands require large dishes and can't access
> some of the fringe satellites not aimed at Britain like Arabsat.
>
>
In the middle of a wood?
Ashley www.snglinks.com
Jamie Powell
> Some landlords ban dishes, portables don't work with them and there are
> places where it is impossible to receive from satellite.
Portable TV's you mean? Yes they do! :-)
The satellite receiver provides an RF output that will work with *any*
TV which has an aerial socket.
Jamie.
cb
Satellite and Cable? For the majority I agree these will suffice, however,
there are a large number of people who cant get cable (such as me. They
havent layed cables around here and probably never will, and I live just
outside one of the largest cities in the south of england.), so for those
people thats out of the question. The same with satellite, a lot of people
cant put dishes up such as those in some flats or those sharing a house.
Digital Terrestrial will become like the current terrestrial, its there for
everyone who cant afford, or simply cant get the paid for digital TV.
I use ITV Digital myself, and I think its great and have no serious
complaints about it. But to get DTT, you have to be in a good coverage
area.. something many people arent. Thats why I think the best thing they
could do with the analogue transmitters is to either convert them to
digital, or at least try and put a few more digital transmitters in they're
place.
CB
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C4D87B0...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> cb wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > I was just wondering, when analogue television is switched off in the
UK,
> > what are the old analogue transmitters going to be used for? Surely they
> > could perhaps modify the existing analogue transmitters so they can
transmit
> > digital signals instead, which will open up digital TV to a lot more
people.
>
> Its possible and they could certainly retain existing parts like masts and
> power supplies. Converting analogue transmitter electronics into digital
> transmitter electronics is rather like converting a gas cooker to
electric.
> Therefore most analogue equipment will end up in the scrapyard unless it
is
> left in situ if extra space is not required. BT sometimes did this with
their
> old exchanges to save money. Most of the strowger in Romford exchange is
still
> in place.
>
> > As I understand it, there is thousands of analogue transmitters around
the
> > country, and less than a hundred digital transmitters. If the government
> > wants digital TV to take off they really need to consider the thousands
of
> > people that are completely unable to receive any kind of digital signal.
>
> Satellite and cable. IMO there is little point in bothering with digital
> terrestrial apart from local short range broadcasting.
>
> > So what will happen to the old transmitters? Will be interesting to find
> > out.
>
> I suppose you have your eyes set on some of the equipment that might be
thrown
> out !!
>
> >
> > CB
>
Roger Mellie
news:3C4FEBF0...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> > Some landlords ban dishes,
>
> Because they are stingy outdated sods.
Or is it perhaps that the local council planning regulations do not permit
them ? You are not allowed to attach dishes to most listed buildings.
> > and there are places where it is impossible to receive from satellite.
>
> Like where ? The Scottish Highlands require large dishes and can't access
> some of the fringe satellites not aimed at Britain like Arabsat.
According to the satellite installers, approximately 20% of of households who
apply for a satellite dish cannot have one because they do not have a clear
line-of-sight path in the appropriate direction.
In fact, you are more likely to be able to receive satellite in the Scottish
Highlands than in the middle of London !
Please make sure you have your facts right !
The Technical Manager
> "The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3C4FEBF0...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> > > Some landlords ban dishes,
> >
> > Because they are stingy outdated sods.
>
> Or is it perhaps that the local council planning regulations do not permit
> them ? You are not allowed to attach dishes to most listed buildings.
Only a small proportion of society live in listed buildings. Most are country
mansions.
Colin
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C4FEBF0...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
Ummm....
Like if you are stuck right below a mountain, large hill of cliff to the
south of you (Scottish Glens, parts of Bath and some Exmoor villages have
been mentioned).
You have a nearby tower block in the wrong place
You only have access to a north facing wall
You live in a conservation area (where, for example, you are only allowed a
TV aerial inside your roofspace)
You have a basement flat
You live just to the north of a flyover or railway embankment, especially
when large vehicles go over.
You live in a wood, or just to the north of one.
Your neighbour grows those Laylandia (or whatever) shrub trees in his hedge.
You live at the end of a runway with Jumbo Jets blotting out the satellite
every 2 minutes.
*******
Seriously, someone has done a calculation to show that only a maximum of
90ish% of the population could use a satellite dish even if they wanted do
(and I think this even included places that could if they installed a shared
dish). So in order not to disinfranchise people you need alternatives.
Colin
John Sager
"Aztech" <a...@tech.com> writes:
>
> Putting the MPEG2 quality discussions aside, what about our poor 2K COFDM
> encoding, now that genuinely is annoying, is it really acceptable that
> people should get picture freezes every time somebody switches on a
> fluorescent light or the central heating pump kicks in (or even the
> neighbours heating in some cases), as long as we have 2K the DTV system will
> appear inferior in terms of robustness compared to PAL. Of course people
> will argue that a new aerial and double-screened cable will sort that out,
> however if people get perfectly good PAL pictures and then switch to DTT and
> suffer all the electrical impulse problems with 2K, it's not really a good
> argument.
>
8k may not solve it. The interleave period is probably too short, and that's
the same on 8k as 2k.
J
charles.hope
Yes, but not if you are not connected to a fixed dish and have mains
electricity around to drive the satellite receiver.
charles.hope
> > "The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3C4FEBF0...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> > > > Some landlords ban dishes,
> > >
> > > Because they are stingy outdated sods.
> >
> > Or is it perhaps that the local council planning regulations do not
> > permit them ? You are not allowed to attach dishes to most listed
> > buildings.
> Only a small proportion of society live in listed buildings. Most are
> country mansions.
In our village most of the listed buildings are small cottages. There are
some mansions, but they are modern.
spe...@clinic.org
and
>> suffer all the electrical impulse problems with 2K, it's not really a
good
>> argument.
>>
>8k may not solve it. The interleave period is probably too short, and
>that's the same on 8k as 2k.
I think I was told that the main advantage of 8k is better immunity to ghost
signals (i.e. multipath signals that are reflected off large buildings,
etc). Since each digital bit stays at the same level before changing for
four times as long, something like 28us rather than about 7us with 2k, then
later reflected signals that arrive during this time are less likely to
corrupt the signal. Not sure about immunity to impulse noise though, maybe
someone can explain that.
I think there's an interesting senario developing. The government wants to
switch off analogue as soon as possible as it can smell the $$$ it thinks it
can make selling off the spectrum. But there's some strange thinking
occurring, a bit like the case just revealed of the new electric trains for
South London that can't be used as they take more current and the power
supplies aren't up to it: someone forgot about that.
I don't think the British public will take kindly to analogue being switched
off if DTT still has flaws - they won't like loosing their telly. To succeed
DTT has got to have good coverage and that will need higher transmitted
power, many more relay stations and an army of technicians to go from house
to house fitting interference suppressors to all those flourescent lights,
door bells, central heating systems, lawn mowers, motor bikes, etc, and
upgrading aerial systems. Also with a larger number of relay stations maybe
all the existing spectrum will need to be used up: after all this spectrum
has been used for TV broadcasting since the 1960s. If there is a bit of
spare spectrum when analogue goes why not use it for a few more multiplexes?
Tony Sayer
his oar in and spake thus
>>> however if people get perfectly good PAL pictures and then switch to DTT
>and
>>> suffer all the electrical impulse problems with 2K, it's not really a
>good
>>> argument.
>>>
>
>>8k may not solve it. The interleave period is probably too short, and
>>that's the same on 8k as 2k.
>
>I think I was told that the main advantage of 8k is better immunity to ghost
>signals (i.e. multipath signals that are reflected off large buildings,
>etc). Since each digital bit stays at the same level before changing for
>four times as long, something like 28us rather than about 7us with 2k, then
>later reflected signals that arrive during this time are less likely to
>corrupt the signal. Not sure about immunity to impulse noise though, maybe
>someone can explain that.
>
>I think there's an interesting senario developing. The government wants to
>switch off analogue as soon as possible as it can smell the $$$ it thinks it
>can make selling off the spectrum. But there's some strange thinking
>occurring, a bit like the case just revealed of the new electric trains for
>South London that can't be used as they take more current and the power
>supplies aren't up to it: someone forgot about that.
>
The TV bands are not suitable for a phone service, why, because no one
will want to make phones for just the UK 470-860. If this was to be a
Europe wide, or world wide issue than that could change. But surely the
mobile phone companies have more then enough spectrum for current and
future phone services, and after the near bankrupting debacle of the
communications companies just *who* is going to pay for it and who wants
it?...
>I don't think the British public will take kindly to analogue being switched
>off if DTT still has flaws - they won't like loosing their telly. To succeed
>DTT has got to have good coverage and that will need higher transmitted
>power, many more relay stations and an army of technicians to go from house
>to house fitting interference suppressors to all those flourescent lights,
>door bells, central heating systems, lawn mowers, motor bikes, etc, and
>upgrading aerial systems. Also with a larger number of relay stations maybe
>all the existing spectrum will need to be used up: after all this spectrum
>has been used for TV broadcasting since the 1960s. If there is a bit of
>spare spectrum when analogue goes why not use it for a few more multiplexes?
>
>
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
Bancom Communications Ltd U.K. Tel +44 1223 566577 Fax +44 1223 566588
P.O. Box 280, Cambridge, England, CB2 2DY E-Mail to...@bancom.co.uk
TL447-553 52* 10.57'N 0* 6.96 E
Don Pearce
The 3G robbery was not all. The government got a proverbial two
fingers from the telecoms world recently with the 28GHz auction
debacle. Hopefully they will take note and not try this again.
d
_____________________________
Telecommunications consultant
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Tony Sayer
>>I just cannot think what the government is up to on spectrum selling.
>>The TV bands are not suitable for a phone service, why, because no one
>>will want to make phones for just the UK 470-860. If this was to be a
>>Europe wide, or world wide issue than that could change. But surely the
>>mobile phone companies have more then enough spectrum for current and
>>future phone services, and after the near bankrupting debacle of the
>>communications companies just *who* is going to pay for it and who wants
>>it?...
>>
>
>The 3G robbery was not all. The government got a proverbial two
>fingers from the telecoms world recently with the 28GHz auction
>debacle. Hopefully they will take note and not try this again.
>
>d
>
>_____________________________
>Telecommunications consultant
>http://www.pearce.uk.com
Yeah!. And just who's spectrum is it anyway?.
!!!!!!!Wavelengths for the people!!!!!!!!....
--
Tony Sayer
icarusi
> At the rate at which things are going analogue television will never
be
> switched off. After all is there a real need to free up the spectrum
for
> anything ?
The new and small £100 Pace STB may get more interest, but a £50 STB
would do more? If they get them down to £25 it looks more reasonable
for an 'add-on' for the extra stations, to the remaining analogue
sets?
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
icarusi
news:ntrt4uk1raq06tmph...@4ax.com...
> Also, for reasons I can't
> understand, there is a constant soup of noise behind digital
pictures.
> Finally, probably in an attempt to recover some sharpness, all the
> digital pictures I have seen exhibit what looks very much like
ringing
> around edges.
In some cases, pre-recorded stuff, there's a 'noise mask' overlayed to
disguise digital artefacts and give an impression there's more
sharpness in the picture than actually exists. Because it's a static
mask, and not random noise, it shows more during panning shots where
it's static nature is revealed. No doubt future software will fade the
mask out over passing shots.
Roger Mellie
> Only a small proportion of society live in listed buildings. Most are
country
> mansions.
Not quite. In many towns and cities there are entire streets and districts
that are listed. In my city, the majority of the West End consists of terraces
of sandstone buildings - and not a dish in sight !
The Technical Manager
> The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3C4DA44E...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
>
> > At the rate at which things are going analogue television will never
> be
> > switched off. After all is there a real need to free up the spectrum
> for
> > anything ?
>
I still think that as long as factories in Japan continue to churn out
analogue sets then analogue television broadcasting will continue
indefinitely. Some countries have no plans to ever install digital
transmitters. Infact I have a good feeling that some third world
countries still only have black and white broadcasts.
The Technical Manager
I think it would be better to make the 28 GHz region of the spectrum a special
band for licence exempt short range wireless internet access rather than try
auctioning it off. That will allow small wireless ISPs to set themselves up all
over the country without having to bid for a piece of the radio spectrum. The
only downside is that the government won't make any money out of it directly and
are reluctant to give anything away for free.
Don Pearce
This is a good idea in principle, but there is a lot going against it,
technically.
The operating range of a 28GHz cell is no more than about 5km, so to
make proper use of the kind of bandwidth available at 28GHz, it is
necessary to sell to big businesses - domestic customers don't need
anything like that kind of bandwidth. And of course big businesses
don't want to deal with small ISPs.
Also the cost per customer of the equipment that must be deployed is
vastly higher than that used at 2.4 or 3.6GHz. This puts a crippling
lower limit on the charges that must be levied on the customer.
So to make use of this kind of bandwidth, an operator would ideally
like a national license, and the opportunity to spend the first four
or five years cherry-picking regions. One of the big reasons for the
failure of this auction was the regional nature of the licenses and
the implied coverage requirements in poor demographics.
The Technical Manager
Perfect. You don't need a radius of more than 5km per tranceiver.
> so to
> make proper use of the kind of bandwidth available at 28GHz, it is
> necessary to sell to big businesses - domestic customers don't need
> anything like that kind of bandwidth.
Rubbish. Broadband internet at affordable prices to the bulk of the UK population is
simply unavailable. The present dial up system is too slow and expensive for regular
use. Private individuals do want affordable broadband at 1 Mbit/s upwards.
Ever heard of telecommuting ? It can't be done in most places because the facilities
don't exist. At the moment broadband is a postcode lottery.
> And of course big businesses
> don't want to deal with small ISPs.
They can afford fibre and leased lines.
> Also the cost per customer of the equipment that must be deployed is
> vastly higher than that used at 2.4 or 3.6GHz. This puts a crippling
> lower limit on the charges that must be levied on the customer.
Mobile phone prices came down as demand and sales increased. The same thing is sure
to happen with wireless internet if given a chance.
I will tell you that with mass produced MMICs at 28 GHz prices will not be much
higher than a system at 2.4 or 3.6 GHz.
> So to make use of this kind of bandwidth,
28 GHz is a frequency. I don't know off hand how much bandwidth around 28 GHz will
be allocated.
> an operator would ideally
> like a national license, and the opportunity to spend the first four
> or five years cherry-picking regions. One of the big reasons for the
> failure of this auction was the regional nature of the licenses and
> the implied coverage requirements in poor demographics.
Thats why I mentioned a licence exempt system similar to wireless LANs and working
over a slightly larger radius. Therefore tranceiver units for both subscribers and
would be wireless ISPs could be purchased off the shelf and used immediately. That
would mean that if someone wanted to set themselves up as a wireless ISP then they
could do so without having to go through the high cost and bureaucracy of spectrum
licences.
As the system will use a form of spread spectrum then if two such people set up
wireless internet servers interference between the two won't result.
Such a system will never achieve the bandwidth capacity of fibre optics or even
co-ax cable but is a perfect system for rural areas, suburbs and smaller towns.
Tony Sayer
>Such a system will never achieve the bandwidth capacity of fibre optics or even
>co-ax cable but is a perfect system for rural areas, suburbs and smaller towns.
>
Which in itself is a good idea. I don't think there's a one size fits
all answer to broadband so a hybrid system of cable connected in larger
towns and a radio distributed system in rural and village locations
might be a way to do this other wise there will be large parts of the
country that will be saddled with dial up for a long time to come.
I believe a company called Radiant Networks are doing something similar
to this called a mesh network where each subscriber terminal acts as a
base station that can pass packets around from location to location..
Tony Sayer
Don Pearce
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
A typical cell will have a capacity of about 112Mbit/sec. The sums
don't add up for domestic consumers. I know this first hand, having
written simultaneous license applications in Denmark for 3.5 and
28GHz. The 28GHz business plan collapsed, and the 3.5GHz license was
won.
Remember you still have to pay for the Internet bandwidth - the
customer link on its own does nothing.
>Ever heard of telecommuting ? It can't be done in most places because the facilities
>don't exist. At the moment broadband is a postcode lottery.
>
This market is served beautifully at 3.6GHz. Take a look at Tele2. The
capacity and cell size are absolutely spot on.
>> And of course big businesses
>> don't want to deal with small ISPs.
>
>They can afford fibre and leased lines.
>
No there are plenty of businesses out there in the no-mans land
between dial-up and leased line. That is a key market for this stuff.
>> Also the cost per customer of the equipment that must be deployed is
>> vastly higher than that used at 2.4 or 3.6GHz. This puts a crippling
>> lower limit on the charges that must be levied on the customer.
>
>Mobile phone prices came down as demand and sales increased. The same thing is sure
>to happen with wireless internet if given a chance.
>
Mobile phone prices responded to demands numbering in the millions.
This just won't happen here.
>I will tell you that with mass produced MMICs at 28 GHz prices will not be much
>higher than a system at 2.4 or 3.6 GHz.
>
>> So to make use of this kind of bandwidth,
>
>28 GHz is a frequency. I don't know off hand how much bandwidth around 28 GHz will
>be allocated.
>
Sorry - I deleted a bit and didn't fill in properly. The answer is a
lot of bandwidth. The average operator will be deploying cells of four
sectors (it is virtually impossible to deploy omni antennas, and the
RA don't like it). These will have a bandwidth of 28Mbit/sec each -
112Mbit/sec per cell. There is a need for additional spectrum because
you need a different operating frequency for each adjoining sector or
cell. It is very much like mobile frequency planning.
>> an operator would ideally
>> like a national license, and the opportunity to spend the first four
>> or five years cherry-picking regions. One of the big reasons for the
>> failure of this auction was the regional nature of the licenses and
>> the implied coverage requirements in poor demographics.
>
>Thats why I mentioned a licence exempt system similar to wireless LANs and working
>over a slightly larger radius. Therefore tranceiver units for both subscribers and
>would be wireless ISPs could be purchased off the shelf and used immediately. That
>would mean that if someone wanted to set themselves up as a wireless ISP then they
>could do so without having to go through the high cost and bureaucracy of spectrum
>licences.
>
Unlicensed operation in these bands is not attractive. What do you do
when the first conflict occurs? These are real, paying customers you
are serving, and they have a right to protection.
>As the system will use a form of spread spectrum then if two such people set up
>wireless internet servers interference between the two won't result.
>
No, these systems are strictly channelized. Some use spread spectrum
within the channels to permit multiple users. Others are simply TDMA.
I helped write the specifications (in ETSI) for these systems as well
as defining the channel plans (in CEPT) within which they operate.
>Such a system will never achieve the bandwidth capacity of fibre optics or even
>co-ax cable but is a perfect system for rural areas, suburbs and smaller towns.
>
As I said, the bandwidth issue is not one of technology, but one of
economics. The cost of bandwidth lies in the Internet connection, not
the customer connection. The big costs associated with these systems
are the capital costs of a)installing the base station and b)
provisioning each customer.
Ian Jelf
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes
>I still think that as long as factories in Japan continue to churn out
>analogue sets then analogue television broadcasting will continue
>indefinitely. Some countries have no plans to ever install digital
>transmitters. Infact I have a good feeling that some third world
>countries still only have black and white broadcasts.
I don't *think* that there's any country left with a B/W only system
now, but if anyone knows differently, I for one would be interested to
know.......
--
Ian Jelf http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk
Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide
for the Heart of England and London
Stephen Neal
The Technical Manager wrote in message
<3C4FFC82...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
>Stephen Neal wrote:
>
>> charles.hope wrote in message <4afd917b7ac...@argonet.co.uk>...
>> >In article <3C4EE4ED...@niobiumfive.co.uk>,
>> > The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
[snip]
>> I think we do have to find a way of making DTT work if we are to switch
off
>> analogue - DCab and DSat are nice additions - but not replacements for
>> terrestrial free-to-air transmissions.
>
>I presume you enjoy paying a licence fee.
I certainly don't object to paying it. Consider it very good value for a
range of quality radio and TV services. The thought of no licence fee but
only getting ITV,C4 and C5 is too depressing to contemplate...
Steve
>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> >
>> >
>
The Technical Manager
> In article <3C553D0A...@niobiumfive.co.uk>, The Technical Manager
> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes
> >I still think that as long as factories in Japan continue to churn out
> >analogue sets then analogue television broadcasting will continue
> >indefinitely. Some countries have no plans to ever install digital
> >transmitters. Infact I have a good feeling that some third world
> >countries still only have black and white broadcasts.
>
> I don't *think* that there's any country left with a B/W only system
> now, but if anyone knows differently, I for one would be interested to
> know.......
I would also be interested if such countries exist. Possibly small obscure
African countries or islands in the Pacific.
The Technical Manager
Some things don't quite work out right first time but take off later. Fax machines are
one of them. Perfected in the 1920s but rarely used until the 1980s.
>
> Remember you still have to pay for the Internet bandwidth
I didn't say anything about not paying. The ISP can charge a customer to be connected.
> - the
> customer link on its own does nothing.
But is needed. As far as broadband internet in the UK is concerned the most serious
problem at present is the last mile.
>
> >Ever heard of telecommuting ? It can't be done in most places because the facilities
> >don't exist. At the moment broadband is a postcode lottery.
> >
> This market is served beautifully at 3.6GHz. Take a look at Tele2. The
> capacity and cell size are absolutely spot on.
>
> >> And of course big businesses
> >> don't want to deal with small ISPs.
> >
> >They can afford fibre and leased lines.
> >
> No there are plenty of businesses out there in the no-mans land
> between dial-up and leased line. That is a key market for this stuff.
>
> >> Also the cost per customer of the equipment that must be deployed is
> >> vastly higher than that used at 2.4 or 3.6GHz. This puts a crippling
> >> lower limit on the charges that must be levied on the customer.
> >
> >Mobile phone prices came down as demand and sales increased. The same thing is sure
> >to happen with wireless internet if given a chance.
> >
> Mobile phone prices responded to demands numbering in the millions.
> This just won't happen here.
Thats just speculation. They said in 1980 that mobiles will always be confined to city
executives. They said in the 1930s that television would never become mainstream and it
was radio with a picture. They said in 1990 that online information services like
Prestel were dead and that the internet would be a complete non starter. They said in
the 1950s that computers are machines of war and not machines of peacetime and of no use
to businesses whatsoever. The list goes on.
>
> >I will tell you that with mass produced MMICs at 28 GHz prices will not be much
> >higher than a system at 2.4 or 3.6 GHz.
> >
> >> So to make use of this kind of bandwidth,
> >
> >28 GHz is a frequency. I don't know off hand how much bandwidth around 28 GHz will
> >be allocated.
> >
> Sorry - I deleted a bit and didn't fill in properly. The answer is a
> lot of bandwidth. The average operator will be deploying cells of four
> sectors
Why four ? Is there anything wrong with say 12 sectors ? In some instances less than 360
degree coverage may be desirable such as the ISP being on a coastline and not wanting to
radiate out to sea.
> (it is virtually impossible to deploy omni antennas, and the
> RA don't like it).
Having a number of sector antennas around the same tower approximates an omnidirectional
antenna anyway.
> These will have a bandwidth of 28Mbit/sec each -
> 112Mbit/sec per cell. There is a need for additional spectrum because
> you need a different operating frequency for each adjoining sector or
> cell. It is very much like mobile frequency planning.
Not if CDMA or frequency hopping spread spectrum is used. One of those techniques is
what I have in mind. Not fixed frequency or TDMA.
>
>
> >> an operator would ideally
> >> like a national license, and the opportunity to spend the first four
> >> or five years cherry-picking regions. One of the big reasons for the
> >> failure of this auction was the regional nature of the licenses and
> >> the implied coverage requirements in poor demographics.
> >
> >Thats why I mentioned a licence exempt system similar to wireless LANs and working
> >over a slightly larger radius. Therefore tranceiver units for both subscribers and
> >would be wireless ISPs could be purchased off the shelf and used immediately. That
> >would mean that if someone wanted to set themselves up as a wireless ISP then they
> >could do so without having to go through the high cost and bureaucracy of spectrum
> >licences.
> >
> Unlicensed operation in these bands is not attractive. What do you do
> when the first conflict occurs?
The technology will prevent most conflicts occuring. Only when masses of users all start
downloading streamed video all at once and the allocated spectrum be completely jam
packed will the performance begin to degrade.
> These are real, paying customers you
> are serving, and they have a right to protection.
>
> >As the system will use a form of spread spectrum then if two such people set up
> >wireless internet servers interference between the two won't result.
> >
> No, these systems are strictly channelized. Some use spread spectrum
> within the channels to permit multiple users. Others are simply TDMA.
> I helped write the specifications (in ETSI) for these systems as well
> as defining the channel plans (in CEPT) within which they operate.
Your system is somewhat different to mine.
> >Such a system will never achieve the bandwidth capacity of fibre optics or even
> >co-ax cable but is a perfect system for rural areas, suburbs and smaller towns.
> >
> As I said, the bandwidth issue is not one of technology, but one of
> economics. The cost of bandwidth lies in the Internet connection, not
> the customer connection.
Most residential users in Britain can't afford broadband even where it exists. Prices
are substantially higher than in most parts of Europe. Its a matter of politics and
management strategies by telcos.
> The big costs associated with these systems
> are the capital costs of a)installing the base station and b)
> provisioning each customer.
It will just be like installing a television aerial.
Amy
> >
> >I presume you enjoy paying a licence fee.
>
>
> I certainly don't object to paying it. Consider it very good value for a
> range of quality radio and TV services. The thought of no licence fee but
> only getting ITV,C4 and C5 is too depressing to contemplate...
Many would disagree - I think Murdoch summed it up when he called the
licence fee an "evil tax". I for one find it difficult to tell the
difference between BBC Children's programmes and "normal" BBC
programming half the time!
Their news is biased and often inaccurate, documentaries uninnovative
and repetative, and the rest I find just too pathetic to even
criticize.
-Very- occasionally, they produce a good comedy series, but that's
all.
The "excuse" for the licence fee arrangement is supposedly that it
allows the BBC to put quality over quantity, and produce programmes
for everyone, even if some will attract only a very small number of
viewers (intellectual high brow debates etc). But where are these
programmes? The schedule is filled with simple-minded trash. And it's
relatively cheap to set up a commercial "specialist" satellite TV
station now - companies producing this niche programming are
commercially viable.
Sure, I wouldn't like to have just ITV, C4 and C5 but that's what a
satellite dish is for. And even if the licence fee were abolished, the
BBC could continue as it is - you'd have adverts, but as it is they
show loads of programme trailers anyway - equally irritating, and
dropping the licence fee would enable poorer folk to spend their
licence fee money on a subscription TV package instead, which they
otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.
Amy.
--
David Crossman
> if the licence fee were abolished, the BBC could continue as
> it is - you'd have adverts
As it is!? "you'd have adverts..."?? As it is?!
Oh yes, Commercial breaks during the Proms, at regular
intervals throughout Films, punctuating a Wimbledon final
- I can't wait.
But I agree many BBC productions are staffed by career women
outputting mindless make-over shows.
This isn't very technical...
--
David Crossman DGGB, LRPS
-------------------------
http://www.dareks.fsnet.co.uk/
Roger Mellie
news:5a51de.020129...@posting.google.com...
> Many would disagree - I think Murdoch summed it up when he called the
> licence fee an "evil tax". I for one find it difficult to tell the
> difference between BBC Children's programmes and "normal" BBC
> programming half the time!
> Their news is biased and often inaccurate, documentaries uninnovative
> and repetative, and the rest I find just too pathetic to even
> criticize.
Do you really think there are many people who would rather watch Sky One in
preference to BBC One ?
I for one find it difficult to tell the difference between Children's
programmes and "normal" Sky programming half the time!
Talk about repetitive ! Does a whole night of "The Simpsons" really appeal to
anybody ? And "Friends" is hardly quality television.
Regarding Sky News, many beleive IT is biased and often inaccurate - how can
it be otherwise when it's financed by an individual whose only interest is in
making money out of it.
Stephen Neal
Amy wrote in message <5a51de.020129...@posting.google.com>...
>"Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
news:<a366da$8np$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>> >
>> >I presume you enjoy paying a licence fee.
>>
>>
>> I certainly don't object to paying it. Consider it very good value for a
>> range of quality radio and TV services. The thought of no licence fee
but
>> only getting ITV,C4 and C5 is too depressing to contemplate...
>
>Many would disagree - I think Murdoch summed it up when he called the
>licence fee an "evil tax".
I wouldn't take my morality guidance on what is good and evil from Mr
Murdoch... I suspect he is just very annoyed that Britain has such a strong
public service broadcasting establishment, and he is annoyed that he has
never been able to establish himself within it, apart from as a pay TV
provider. (He tried to buy LWT in the 70s didn't he? Never really forgiven
the establishment for not being allowed to)
>I for one find it difficult to tell the
>difference between BBC Children's programmes and "normal" BBC
>programming half the time!
Do you watch BBC kids and adult shows? (I agree BBC kids shows have some of
the best production values around though - some of their drama is absolutely
top knotch...)
>Their news is biased and often inaccurate, documentaries uninnovative
>and repetative, and the rest I find just too pathetic to even
>criticize.
Interesting you find BBC News biased and inaccurate - what do you base this
on?
The BBC World service seems to be the most trusted radio broadcaster
globally, as does BBC World TV, which is closely linked with News 24. Can
you suggest a global broadcaster whose newsgathering you would trust more?
The decimated ITN is hardly providing much competition these days - far more
of its reports coming from edit suites in Central London than yesteryear...
I do get extremely annoyed by throwaway comments like this. Would you
rather have your TV and Radio News provided by the same news organisation
that publishes The Sun, The Sunday Times and The News of the World?
Great... Truly unbiased...
>-Very- occasionally, they produce a good comedy series, but that's
>all.
>The "excuse" for the licence fee arrangement is supposedly that it
>allows the BBC to put quality over quantity, and produce programmes
>for everyone, even if some will attract only a very small number of
>viewers (intellectual high brow debates etc).
What is wrong with making programmes that only some of the population want
to watch? Should all programmes appeal to everyone? Surely the fact that a
range of programmes - highbrow and populist - is available to the whole
nation is an argument to retain the licence fee? Much more egalitarian than
the subscription alternative IMHO.
>But where are these
>programmes? The schedule is filled with simple-minded trash. And it's
>relatively cheap to set up a commercial "specialist" satellite TV
>station now - companies producing this niche programming are
>commercially viable.
>
Yep - but only on a subscription model - and very few are making a profit.
Very few are actually making their own programmes of a decent quality - most
are just buying in stuff of dubious quality, or age...
>Sure, I wouldn't like to have just ITV, C4 and C5 but that's what a
>satellite dish is for. And even if the licence fee were abolished, the
>BBC could continue as it is - you'd have adverts, but as it is they
>show loads of programme trailers anyway - equally irritating, and
>dropping the licence fee would enable poorer folk to spend their
>licence fee money on a subscription TV package instead, which they
>otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.
Advertising revenue is finite - therefore Sky, ITV, C4 and C5 would have
reduced incomes. (ITV would no doubt just halve ITNs funding again... C5
would just axe more news programmes, and show Sky News instead...)
You may find trailers as irritating as adverts - I can guarantee you many
parents would not agree. They'd be very happy to allow their kids to watch
childrens TV, with trailers but minus the adverts for expensive toys, fast
food etc. Why do you think the ratings for CBBC on Choice are so high in
multi-channel households?!
Would you fund BBC Radio in the same way, without a licence fee? Radios 3,
4 and 5 with adverts - great for long music concerts and editorial
integrity. Say goodbye to any consumer journalism... (Oh yes - the
advertising funded ILR radio services, ITV, C4, C5 and Sky are crawling with
programmes critical of companies that advertise on their channels - silly
me, I must always miss them...) BBC Local Radio, providing genuinely useful
community services through their carelines... Do you think this would
continue under a commercial management?
As for not paying a TV licence allowing people on a low income to afford Pay
TV. The "Full basic" - i.e. non films, non sport - Sky Family package is
£16 per month... Annually almost twice the licence fee...
Sorry - can't agree with your argument - probably pointless to try to reply
to it - but I feel very strongly that the BBC is worth defending.
FYI : I do subscribe to Sky (Family pack) strangely I spend most of my time
watching the Beeb channels... God knows how many channels but very little
worth watching.
Steve
>
>Amy.
>--
Stephen Neal
David Crossman wrote in message ...
>In an article, Amy <amy_ju...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> if the licence fee were abolished, the BBC could continue as
>> it is - you'd have adverts
>
>As it is!? "you'd have adverts..."?? As it is?!
>
>Oh yes, Commercial breaks during the Proms, at regular
>intervals throughout Films, punctuating a Wimbledon final
>- I can't wait.
Couldn't agree more.
>
>But I agree many BBC productions are staffed by career women
>outputting mindless make-over shows.
>
Annoying that so many people seem to want to watch them though - BBC One
daytime - almost entirely makeover shows - is killing This Morning in the
ratings now I believe (even with Fern back)...
>This isn't very technical...
No - sorry...
Steve
Don Pearce
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> A typical cell will have a capacity of about 112Mbit/sec. The sums
>> don't add up for domestic consumers. I know this first hand, having
>> written simultaneous license applications in Denmark for 3.5 and
>> 28GHz. The 28GHz business plan collapsed, and the 3.5GHz license was
>> won.
>
>Some things don't quite work out right first time but take off later. Fax machines are
>one of them. Perfected in the 1920s but rarely used until the 1980s.
>
>>
>> Remember you still have to pay for the Internet bandwidth
>
>I didn't say anything about not paying. The ISP can charge a customer to be connected.
>
The point I am making here is that with a total cell bandwidth of
112Mbit/sec, if you want to actually justify that bandwidth and make
use of it, each domestic user will have a huge access speed. If that
is to be reflected in a matching speed on the Internet. That
connection has to be paid for, and must be passed on to the customer.
Very few domestic customers will be happy to meet that kind of cost.
>> - the
>> customer link on its own does nothing.
>
>But is needed. As far as broadband internet in the UK is concerned the most serious
>problem at present is the last mile.
>
Absolutely. But it must be an appropriate connection. 112Mbit/sec
shared between perhaps 100 connected users in a cell is not an
appropriate connection for domestic customers. It may be for some
businesses.
<snip>
>> >Mobile phone prices came down as demand and sales increased. The same thing is sure
>> >to happen with wireless internet if given a chance.
>> >
>> Mobile phone prices responded to demands numbering in the millions.
>> This just won't happen here.
>
>Thats just speculation. They said in 1980 that mobiles will always be confined to city
>executives. They said in the 1930s that television would never become mainstream and it
>was radio with a picture. They said in 1990 that online information services like
>Prestel were dead and that the internet would be a complete non starter. They said in
>the 1950s that computers are machines of war and not machines of peacetime and of no use
>to businesses whatsoever. The list goes on.
>
Sure it is speculation. But it has a basis. As I have said already, it
is not an appropriate connection for a domestic user, so there is no
reason for the volumes to increase. We have all heard the hype over
streaming content, but like video conferencing it keeps getting
promised but not happening. If serious video content is ever really
needed, then the 40GHz MDS band is waiting, with much more bandwidth
suited to broadcast distribution. 28GHz is sitting in a no-mans land.
>>
>> >I will tell you that with mass produced MMICs at 28 GHz prices will not be much
>> >higher than a system at 2.4 or 3.6 GHz.
>> >
>> >> So to make use of this kind of bandwidth,
>> >
>> >28 GHz is a frequency. I don't know off hand how much bandwidth around 28 GHz will
>> >be allocated.
>> >
>> Sorry - I deleted a bit and didn't fill in properly. The answer is a
>> lot of bandwidth. The average operator will be deploying cells of four
>> sectors
>
>Why four ? Is there anything wrong with say 12 sectors ? In some instances less than 360
>degree coverage may be desirable such as the ISP being on a coastline and not wanting to
>radiate out to sea.
>
Four sector antennas are type-approved. If you want less, sure you
miss some sectors - as you say on a coastline. But as for more sectors
- at 28Mbit/sec per sector you would need an incredibly
densely-populated and demanding consumer set for that kind of
requirement.
>> (it is virtually impossible to deploy omni antennas, and the
>> RA don't like it).
>
>Having a number of sector antennas around the same tower approximates an omnidirectional
>antenna anyway.
>
Absolutely, but again I am considering the bandwidth situation.
28Mbit/sec shared over the whole 360 degrees would make a lot more
commercial sense, but it can't be done. If you want four sectors, they
must be on separate frequencies or you get interference fringes where
there is no signal.
>> These will have a bandwidth of 28Mbit/sec each -
>> 112Mbit/sec per cell. There is a need for additional spectrum because
>> you need a different operating frequency for each adjoining sector or
>> cell. It is very much like mobile frequency planning.
>
>Not if CDMA or frequency hopping spread spectrum is used. One of those techniques is
>what I have in mind. Not fixed frequency or TDMA.
>
Not so. CDMA relies on signal level control to manage the near-far
effect. Signal levels can only be managed on the wanted link. To any
other receiver they are simply interference. If two operators want to
share one area, they must be given different channels. You would not
believe the hours a bunch of us spent in the New Technologies group of
CEPT (SE19) designing and testing interference scenarios to come up
with geographic and frequency planning rules acceptable to all
manufacturers and regulators.
>>
>>
>> >> an operator would ideally
>> >> like a national license, and the opportunity to spend the first four
>> >> or five years cherry-picking regions. One of the big reasons for the
>> >> failure of this auction was the regional nature of the licenses and
>> >> the implied coverage requirements in poor demographics.
>> >
>> >Thats why I mentioned a licence exempt system similar to wireless LANs and working
>> >over a slightly larger radius. Therefore tranceiver units for both subscribers and
>> >would be wireless ISPs could be purchased off the shelf and used immediately. That
>> >would mean that if someone wanted to set themselves up as a wireless ISP then they
>> >could do so without having to go through the high cost and bureaucracy of spectrum
>> >licences.
>> >
>> Unlicensed operation in these bands is not attractive. What do you do
>> when the first conflict occurs?
>
>The technology will prevent most conflicts occuring. Only when masses of users all start
>downloading streamed video all at once and the allocated spectrum be completely jam
>packed will the performance begin to degrade.
>
The spectrum occupancy has nothing to do with what users are
downloading. It is set by the equipment and the number of connections.
>> These are real, paying customers you
>> are serving, and they have a right to protection.
>>
>> >As the system will use a form of spread spectrum then if two such people set up
>> >wireless internet servers interference between the two won't result.
>> >
>> No, these systems are strictly channelized. Some use spread spectrum
>> within the channels to permit multiple users. Others are simply TDMA.
>> I helped write the specifications (in ETSI) for these systems as well
>> as defining the channel plans (in CEPT) within which they operate.
>
>Your system is somewhat different to mine.
>
I don't understand what you mean here. I don't have a system. I have
defined the specifications and deployment rules for all equipment that
will operate in these bands. If you have something different you must
take it through the normal regulatory channels.
>> >Such a system will never achieve the bandwidth capacity of fibre optics or even
>> >co-ax cable but is a perfect system for rural areas, suburbs and smaller towns.
>> >
>> As I said, the bandwidth issue is not one of technology, but one of
>> economics. The cost of bandwidth lies in the Internet connection, not
>> the customer connection.
>
>Most residential users in Britain can't afford broadband even where it exists. Prices
>are substantially higher than in most parts of Europe. Its a matter of politics and
>management strategies by telcos.
>
Absolutely right. And deploying equipment with inherent performance at
least ten, and probably 100 times as good as they can pay for makes no
sense.
>> The big costs associated with these systems
>> are the capital costs of a)installing the base station and b)
>> provisioning each customer.
>
>It will just be like installing a television aerial.
>
No it isn't. A television aerial costs about £2, and the installation
perhaps £50. At 28GHz the capital cost of an installation is about
£800 for the equipment and another £200 for the installation. That is
in no way equivalent.
d
The Technical Manager
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:31:01 +0000, The Technical Manager
> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> A typical cell will have a capacity of about 112Mbit/sec. The sums
> >> don't add up for domestic consumers. I know this first hand, having
> >> written simultaneous license applications in Denmark for 3.5 and
> >> 28GHz. The 28GHz business plan collapsed, and the 3.5GHz license was
> >> won.
> >
> >Some things don't quite work out right first time but take off later. Fax machines are
> >one of them. Perfected in the 1920s but rarely used until the 1980s.
> >
> >>
> >> Remember you still have to pay for the Internet bandwidth
> >
> >I didn't say anything about not paying. The ISP can charge a customer to be connected.
> >
>
> The point I am making here is that with a total cell bandwidth of
> 112Mbit/sec, if you want to actually justify that bandwidth and make
> use of it, each domestic user will have a huge access speed.
There is no reason for such a high bandwidth. I mentioned an operating frequency centred
around 28 GHz but did not specify the cell bandwidth or connection bandwidth. A connection
bandwidth of 1-2Mbit/s would be more than enough for most residential users at present.
> If that
> is to be reflected in a matching speed on the Internet. That
> connection has to be paid for, and must be passed on to the customer.
> Very few domestic customers will be happy to meet that kind of cost.
You could always try cutting the costs by cutting the bandwidth. Your concept really is
overkill to what I had in mind.
> Four sector antennas are type-approved. If you want less, sure you
> miss some sectors - as you say on a coastline. But as for more sectors
> - at 28Mbit/sec per sector you would need an incredibly
> densely-populated and demanding consumer set for that kind of
> requirement.
If you increase the number of sectors then it would also be possible to decrease the data
bandwidth per sector.
>
> >> (it is virtually impossible to deploy omni antennas, and the
> >> RA don't like it).
> >
> >Having a number of sector antennas around the same tower approximates an omnidirectional
> >antenna anyway.
> >
> Absolutely, but again I am considering the bandwidth situation.
> 28Mbit/sec shared over the whole 360 degrees would make a lot more
> commercial sense, but it can't be done. If you want four sectors, they
> must be on separate frequencies or you get interference fringes where
> there is no signal.
By having more sectors reduces the overall areas that would be in nulls if a four sector
antenna were used.
>
> >> These will have a bandwidth of 28Mbit/sec each -
> >> 112Mbit/sec per cell. There is a need for additional spectrum because
> >> you need a different operating frequency for each adjoining sector or
> >> cell. It is very much like mobile frequency planning.
> >
> >Not if CDMA or frequency hopping spread spectrum is used. One of those techniques is
> >what I have in mind. Not fixed frequency or TDMA.
> >
> Not so. CDMA relies on signal level control to manage the near-far
> effect. Signal levels can only be managed on the wanted link. To any
> other receiver they are simply interference.
DSP can help with that problem.
> If two operators want to
> share one area, they must be given different channels. You would not
> believe the hours a bunch of us spent in the New Technologies group of
> CEPT (SE19) designing and testing interference scenarios to come up
> with geographic and frequency planning rules acceptable to all
> manufacturers and regulators.
You only need one protocol that can be used by many different equipment manufacturers.
Its just that the concept I had in mind is somewhat different to your concept or what you
were working on.
> If you have something different you must
> take it through the normal regulatory channels.
The Radiocommunications Agency is a secretive elitist institution that doesn't like
listening to the general public even if they have degrees in electronic engineering and
design RF and microwave hardware as a career. Many times I have submitted concepts and
proposals to the Radiocommunications Agency or the DTI but I got no replies and no action
seemed to be taken. I have also contacted my MP about the concept and the possibility of
bringing up some form of debate in parliament or passing on the info to the appropriate
technical authorities but again nothing seems to have materialised.
>
> >> >Such a system will never achieve the bandwidth capacity of fibre optics or even
> >> >co-ax cable but is a perfect system for rural areas, suburbs and smaller towns.
> >> >
> >> As I said, the bandwidth issue is not one of technology, but one of
> >> economics. The cost of bandwidth lies in the Internet connection, not
> >> the customer connection.
> >
> >Most residential users in Britain can't afford broadband even where it exists. Prices
> >are substantially higher than in most parts of Europe. Its a matter of politics and
> >management strategies by telcos.
> >
> Absolutely right. And deploying equipment with inherent performance at
> least ten, and probably 100 times as good as they can pay for makes no
> sense.
>
Again your concept is different to what I have in mind.
> >> The big costs associated with these systems
> >> are the capital costs of a)installing the base station and b)
> >> provisioning each customer.
> >
> >It will just be like installing a television aerial.
> >
>
> No it isn't. A television aerial costs about £2,
From a garage sale maybe. High quality new ones cost more.
> and the installation
> perhaps £50. At 28GHz the capital cost of an installation is about
> £800 for the equipment and another £200 for the installation. That is
> in no way equivalent.
The antenna will probably be the most expensive part but mass produced the prices will fall
to become affordable. Like satellite dishes in a way.
Don Pearce
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:31:01 +0000, The Technical Manager
>> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> A typical cell will have a capacity of about 112Mbit/sec. The sums
>> >> don't add up for domestic consumers. I know this first hand, having
>> >> written simultaneous license applications in Denmark for 3.5 and
>> >> 28GHz. The 28GHz business plan collapsed, and the 3.5GHz license was
>> >> won.
>> >
>> >Some things don't quite work out right first time but take off later. Fax machines are
>> >one of them. Perfected in the 1920s but rarely used until the 1980s.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Remember you still have to pay for the Internet bandwidth
>> >
>> >I didn't say anything about not paying. The ISP can charge a customer to be connected.
>> >
>>
>> The point I am making here is that with a total cell bandwidth of
>> 112Mbit/sec, if you want to actually justify that bandwidth and make
>> use of it, each domestic user will have a huge access speed.
>
>There is no reason for such a high bandwidth. I mentioned an operating frequency centred
>around 28 GHz but did not specify the cell bandwidth or connection bandwidth. A connection
>bandwidth of 1-2Mbit/s would be more than enough for most residential users at present.
>
This band is a done deal. It has been before WRC. The channel widths
are defined, and the associated bandwidths go along with those channel
widths. You can't deploy 1-2Mbits/sec at 28GHz. You can at 3.6GHz.
>> If that
>> is to be reflected in a matching speed on the Internet. That
>> connection has to be paid for, and must be passed on to the customer.
>> Very few domestic customers will be happy to meet that kind of cost.
>
>You could always try cutting the costs by cutting the bandwidth. Your concept really is
>overkill to what I had in mind.
>
Capital costs have nothing to do with bandwidth, just variable costs.
A radio is a radio.
>> Four sector antennas are type-approved. If you want less, sure you
>> miss some sectors - as you say on a coastline. But as for more sectors
>> - at 28Mbit/sec per sector you would need an incredibly
>> densely-populated and demanding consumer set for that kind of
>> requirement.
>
>If you increase the number of sectors then it would also be possible to decrease the data
>bandwidth per sector.
>
No. The channel widths are set. All you would do is waste spectrum.
>>
>> >> (it is virtually impossible to deploy omni antennas, and the
>> >> RA don't like it).
>> >
>> >Having a number of sector antennas around the same tower approximates an omnidirectional
>> >antenna anyway.
>> >
>> Absolutely, but again I am considering the bandwidth situation.
>> 28Mbit/sec shared over the whole 360 degrees would make a lot more
>> commercial sense, but it can't be done. If you want four sectors, they
>> must be on separate frequencies or you get interference fringes where
>> there is no signal.
>
>By having more sectors reduces the overall areas that would be in nulls if a four sector
>antenna were used.
>
With lots of sectors, the nulls would be narrower but more numerous.
>>
>> >> These will have a bandwidth of 28Mbit/sec each -
>> >> 112Mbit/sec per cell. There is a need for additional spectrum because
>> >> you need a different operating frequency for each adjoining sector or
>> >> cell. It is very much like mobile frequency planning.
>> >
>> >Not if CDMA or frequency hopping spread spectrum is used. One of those techniques is
>> >what I have in mind. Not fixed frequency or TDMA.
>> >
>> Not so. CDMA relies on signal level control to manage the near-far
>> effect. Signal levels can only be managed on the wanted link. To any
>> other receiver they are simply interference.
>
>DSP can help with that problem.
>
No it can't. CDMA is entirely DSP and does the best it can. There is
nothing that additional DSP will do to remove interference from a CDMA
signal.
>> If two operators want to
>> share one area, they must be given different channels. You would not
>> believe the hours a bunch of us spent in the New Technologies group of
>> CEPT (SE19) designing and testing interference scenarios to come up
>> with geographic and frequency planning rules acceptable to all
>> manufacturers and regulators.
>
>You only need one protocol that can be used by many different equipment manufacturers.
>
Not at all. This isn't a mobile band and there is no need to
accommodate other manufacturers' equipment that might wander into the
service area. All you need is protocols that are compatible at the
co-existence level.
The concept I was working on is the concept that has been accepted and
standardised world-wide. If you have another, I'm afraid you are too
late.
>> If you have something different you must
>> take it through the normal regulatory channels.
>
>The Radiocommunications Agency is a secretive elitist institution that doesn't like
>listening to the general public even if they have degrees in electronic engineering and
>design RF and microwave hardware as a career. Many times I have submitted concepts and
>proposals to the Radiocommunications Agency or the DTI but I got no replies and no action
>seemed to be taken. I have also contacted my MP about the concept and the possibility of
>bringing up some form of debate in parliament or passing on the info to the appropriate
>technical authorities but again nothing seems to have materialised.
>
You don't understand the RA. It is neither secretive nor elitist. Also
it does not instigate any standards at anybody's individual behest.
The position the RA took to WRC was that agreed as a Europe-wide
decision. That decision was made by me and many other people
representing industry and regulators from all over the place. The
meetings were open forums - anybody could be nominated for inclusion.
Preparatory to each meeting was a UK meeting hosted by either the RA
or a British company, in which a consensus view was obtained and put
forward as the UK position by the RA, on behalf of everybody. That
position was supported by reams of technical papers provided by me and
others which would be discussed and modified in great detail by the
European body.
That is how it works, and the idea that you can simply phone or write
to the RA and either demand or suggest that they do this or that is
naive beyond belief. Everything the RA does is with the express
instruction of the UK telecoms industry - whether manufacturing or
operating.
>>
>> >> >Such a system will never achieve the bandwidth capacity of fibre optics or even
>> >> >co-ax cable but is a perfect system for rural areas, suburbs and smaller towns.
>> >> >
>> >> As I said, the bandwidth issue is not one of technology, but one of
>> >> economics. The cost of bandwidth lies in the Internet connection, not
>> >> the customer connection.
>> >
>> >Most residential users in Britain can't afford broadband even where it exists. Prices
>> >are substantially higher than in most parts of Europe. Its a matter of politics and
>> >management strategies by telcos.
>> >
>> Absolutely right. And deploying equipment with inherent performance at
>> least ten, and probably 100 times as good as they can pay for makes no
>> sense.
>>
>
>Again your concept is different to what I have in mind.
>
Again, you are too late. If you had a brilliant concept, you should
have taken it to a manufacturer or operator willing to spend the time
and money placing it before the appropriate European bodies. Even
then, as a solitary position, at variance with everybody else's vision
for the band you would have made no progress.
>> >> The big costs associated with these systems
>> >> are the capital costs of a)installing the base station and b)
>> >> provisioning each customer.
>> >
>> >It will just be like installing a television aerial.
>> >
>>
>> No it isn't. A television aerial costs about £2,
>
>From a garage sale maybe. High quality new ones cost more.
>
No, good ones cost that in quantity.
>> and the installation
>> perhaps £50. At 28GHz the capital cost of an installation is about
>> £800 for the equipment and another £200 for the installation. That is
>> in no way equivalent.
>
>The antenna will probably be the most expensive part but mass produced the prices will fall
>to become affordable. Like satellite dishes in a way.
>
No. Not like satellite dishes. This isn't just an antenna. This is a
highly regulated, licensed two-way link. It must be type-approved and
is subject to instant removal if it causes interference.
It comprises an antenna, transceiver unit and distribution box. It
must be installed by an accredited installer who can guarantee
line-of-sight and sign on the dotted line that he has done it
properly.
The Technical Manager
factor being 28 GHz and getting very mixed up with things. Its like comparing apples with
oranges.
> Again, you are too late. If you had a brilliant concept, you should
> have taken it to a manufacturer or operator willing to spend the time
> and money placing it before the appropriate European bodies.
I had my concept in mind since 1996 and contacted various RF system manufacturers about it.
Their responses varied: Some failed to reply, others claimed the system would never take off
due to lack of demand, others told me that the technology exists but the political will to make
a portion of the spectrum available is what is stopping it from becoming reality, others said
they also had the idea and would start making equipment once the frequency band was allocated,
others failed to take the matter seriously, others claimed it would be a too much of a threat
to existing technology, others said the system would take off in other countries but not
Britain because of the publics opposition to phone masts being extended to wireless internet.
The list goes on.
> Even
> then, as a solitary position, at variance with everybody else's vision
> for the band you would have made no progress.
It is the concept I am talking about and not a use for 28 GHz. The transmitter frequency is
somewhat immaterial as long as the system works.
Aztech
<snip>
> >But I agree many BBC productions are staffed by career women
> >outputting mindless make-over shows.
>
> Annoying that so many people seem to want to watch them though - BBC One
> daytime - almost entirely makeover shows - is killing This Morning in the
> ratings now I believe (even with Fern back)...
Erm.... that isn't exactly saying much, I think your point is a little
self-defeating you mean to say BBC1 mind numbing junk outperforms ITV's mind
numbing junk? Wow... they must be proud.
The problem is, the BBC has become lazy and therefore producing formulaic
uninnovative shows en masse all set within the same genre, now that's fine
for day time stuff but its unashamedly spilled over into the rest of the
schedule, the quantity of East Enders is an example of that, a greatdeal of
people simply don't care for it every night of the week, and I've never
heard 'everyone talking about it', in a dash for rating they've out trashed
the commercial channels.
At least ITV has the excuse of declining advertising revenues to justify
sloppy shows, with the BBC it's just the opposite. If the shows and scripts
are trash then it doesn't matter how much money you have or how good the
quality of production is, you still end up with trash. Hence 'tripping over
your own wallet'.
Whenever there's a whiff of criticism then self-congratulation doesn't help
either, the BBC can't live on its reputation if they're constantly
undermining the values that established that reputation. It would be a sad
day if the BBC went commercial, but the way the programming is purely
focused on ratings it seems they're setting themselves up for that trap,
they may well end up being their own worst enemy.
If the BBC carry on this course people will perceive it to be of little or
no value, or no better than several junky channels already available through
Sky/Cable for free. The licence fee is an entirely unenforceable system that
solely relies on good will, once you loose the faith of the public it all
comes crumbling down, I hope it doesn't happen.
Az.
Amy
> >Many would disagree - I think Murdoch summed it up when he called the
> >licence fee an "evil tax".
>
> I wouldn't take my morality guidance on what is good and evil from Mr
> Murdoch... I suspect he is just very annoyed that Britain has such a strong
> public service broadcasting establishment
It's hardly public service broadcasting when people have to pay for
it.
> >I for one find it difficult to tell the
> >difference between BBC Children's programmes and "normal" BBC
> >programming half the time!
>
> Do you watch BBC kids and adult shows? (I agree BBC kids shows have some of
> the best production values around though - some of their drama is absolutely
> top knotch...)
I couldn't disagree more.
> >Their news is biased and often inaccurate, documentaries uninnovative
> >and repetative, and the rest I find just too pathetic to even
> >criticize.
>
> Interesting you find BBC News biased and inaccurate - what do you base this
> on?
Comparison to the many other news broasdcasters available via
satellite (not just those on "Sky".) It's pro-labour (and that's a
widely-held view), pro-Muslim and *very* liberal. They don't even
report certain events atall sometimes, if such events put liberalism,
labour and/or Muslims in a bad light.
> The BBC World service seems to be the most trusted radio broadcaster
> globally, as does BBC World TV, which is closely linked with News 24. Can
You keep telling yourself that. It must be true cause they said so on
BBC News!
> you suggest a global broadcaster whose newsgathering you would trust more?
CNN, Fox, Sky....
> The decimated ITN is hardly providing much competition these days - far more
> of its reports coming from edit suites in Central London than yesteryear...
Agreed - ITN sucks and the closely-linked "Euronews" channel is
beneath contempt.
> I do get extremely annoyed by throwaway comments like this. Would you
And I get annoyed by the "ahem... we only watch Bee Bee Cee" people,
like you.
Close-minded, self-righteous so and so's....
> rather have your TV and Radio News provided by the same news organisation
> that publishes The Sun, The Sunday Times and The News of the World?
> Great... Truly unbiased...
I honestly don't think that the parent organisations tend to affect
the "slant" of the channel or paper's news reporting. Just compare The
Sun to The Sunday Times - same organization, totally different slant
on things.
> >The "excuse" for the licence fee arrangement is supposedly that it
> >allows the BBC to put quality over quantity, and produce programmes
> >for everyone, even if some will attract only a very small number of
> >viewers (intellectual high brow debates etc).
>
> What is wrong with making programmes that only some of the population want
> to watch?
I never said there was anything wrong with that. Quite the opposite,
in fact.
> Should all programmes appeal to everyone? Surely the fact that a
> range of programmes - highbrow and populist - is available to the whole
> nation is an argument to retain the licence fee?
But that's the point - a range of such programmes *isn't* available
from the BBC!
> Much more egalitarian than the subscription alternative IMHO.
If the BBC did its job properly, it would be.
> >But where are these
> >programmes? The schedule is filled with simple-minded trash. And it's
> >relatively cheap to set up a commercial "specialist" satellite TV
> >station now - companies producing this niche programming are
> >commercially viable.
> >
>
> Yep - but only on a subscription model - and very few are making a profit.
> Very few are actually making their own programmes of a decent quality - most
> are just buying in stuff of dubious quality, or age...
Dot.TV was a good example of a channel that *did* make its own
programmes. In this case they provided often-detailed information for
home computer enthusiasts. CPD Dental TV is another example. But I
suspect most of the people who would've watched these channels are too
bigoted to get a satellite dish.
I find alot of the other channels' programming to be of high quality.
The fact that it's been bought-in from, say, Australia or the US
doesn't bother me.
> Advertising revenue is finite - therefore Sky, ITV, C4 and C5 would have
> reduced incomes. (ITV would no doubt just halve ITNs funding again... C5
> would just axe more news programmes, and show Sky News instead...)
I disagree, because a specialist channel would be able to attract
advertisers selling specialist products and services aimed at an
audience which they would only find watching that channel, and which
wouldn't have advertised on TV atall otherwise.
> You may find trailers as irritating as adverts - I can guarantee you many
> parents would not agree. They'd be very happy to allow their kids to watch
> childrens TV, with trailers but minus the adverts for expensive toys, fast
> food etc. Why do you think the ratings for CBBC on Choice are so high in
> multi-channel households?!
Communist parents? Well... on my planet, children are actually allowed
to touch the TV remote control for themselves.
> Would you fund BBC Radio in the same way, without a licence fee? Radios 3,
> 4 and 5 with adverts - great for long music concerts and editorial
> integrity.
Editorial integrity? You mean like that of, for example, Jeremy
Clarkson, who appears on the BBC and is "sponsored" by Ford?
And to take the example of Radios 1 and 2 - there are dozens of
musical "scenes"/genres which they don't cover, but many of these are
covered by commercial satellite radio broadcasters. Same goes for
music on BBC TV.
> BBC Local Radio, providing genuinely useful
> community services through their carelines... Do you think this would
> continue under a commercial management?
"Community services" - it's all the same trash. Like "are you feeling
suicidal this christmas? Well, call us, cause we -really- care!". It
goes round in annual circles. In November, you always get "Remember
not to light a firework if it's only 2 inches from your face!". Need I
go on?
> As for not paying a TV licence allowing people on a low income to afford Pay
> TV. The "Full basic" - i.e. non films, non sport - Sky Family package is
> £16 per month... Annually almost twice the licence fee...
There's a cheaper package than that.
> FYI : I do subscribe to Sky (Family pack) strangely I spend most of my time
> watching the Beeb channels... God knows how many channels but very little
> worth watching.
Your opinion, not mine. Perhaps it's the "generation gap"?
Amy.
--
The Technical Manager
> Amy wrote in message <5a51de.020129...@posting.google.com>...
> >"Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
> news:<a366da$8np$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> >> >
> >> >I presume you enjoy paying a licence fee.
> >>
> >>
> >> I certainly don't object to paying it. Consider it very good value for a
> >> range of quality radio and TV services. The thought of no licence fee
> but
> >> only getting ITV,C4 and C5 is too depressing to contemplate...
> >
> >Many would disagree - I think Murdoch summed it up when he called the
> >licence fee an "evil tax".
>
> I wouldn't take my morality guidance on what is good and evil from Mr
> Murdoch... I suspect he is just very annoyed that Britain has such a strong
> public service broadcasting establishment, and he is annoyed that he has
> never been able to establish himself within it, apart from as a pay TV
> provider. (He tried to buy LWT in the 70s didn't he? Never really forgiven
> the establishment for not being allowed to)
>
> >I for one find it difficult to tell the
> >difference between BBC Children's programmes and "normal" BBC
> >programming half the time!
>
> Do you watch BBC kids and adult shows? (I agree BBC kids shows have some of
> the best production values around though - some of their drama is absolutely
> top knotch...)
>
Really. I think CBBC was a darn sight better in the 80s. They had really great
cartoons and more educational programmes back then. Much of the drama IMO is
crude and uninspiring like Byker Grove and Microsoap. I actually feel sorry for
kids nowadays.
>
> >Their news is biased and often inaccurate, documentaries uninnovative
> >and repetative, and the rest I find just too pathetic to even
> >criticize.
>
> Interesting you find BBC News biased and inaccurate - what do you base this
> on?
>
> The BBC World service seems to be the most trusted radio broadcaster
> globally, as does BBC World TV, which is closely linked with News 24. Can
> you suggest a global broadcaster whose newsgathering you would trust more?
> The decimated ITN is hardly providing much competition these days - far more
> of its reports coming from edit suites in Central London than yesteryear...
>
> I do get extremely annoyed by throwaway comments like this. Would you
> rather have your TV and Radio News provided by the same news organisation
> that publishes The Sun, The Sunday Times and The News of the World?
> Great... Truly unbiased...
>
I think that different news broadcasters should concentrate on different types
of news. Some for foreign, some for local, some for specialist issues like the
environment or medical discoveries. One thing I have noticed about television
news is that most is bad news or of a problem variety. Perhaps we should have
some channels focussing on good news for a change.
I was thinking of breaking up the BBC and having one or more channels on
subscription for the populist and entertainment stuff and having another funded
directly from the treasury for as a public information channel showing things
like news, weather reports, political coverage and certain documentries like
Horizon and Panorama along with their teletext service.
Not exactly mass market stuff and no need for any viewing ratings but cheap
enough to do away with the licence.
>
> Advertising revenue is finite - therefore Sky, ITV, C4 and C5 would have
> reduced incomes. (ITV would no doubt just halve ITNs funding again... C5
> would just axe more news programmes, and show Sky News instead...)
>
> You may find trailers as irritating as adverts - I can guarantee you many
> parents would not agree. They'd be very happy to allow their kids to watch
> childrens TV, with trailers but minus the adverts for expensive toys, fast
> food etc. Why do you think the ratings for CBBC on Choice are so high in
> multi-channel households?!
>
> Would you fund BBC Radio in the same way, without a licence fee? Radios 3,
> 4 and 5 with adverts - great for long music concerts and editorial
> integrity. Say goodbye to any consumer journalism... (Oh yes - the
> advertising funded ILR radio services, ITV, C4, C5 and Sky are crawling with
> programmes critical of companies that advertise on their channels - silly
> me, I must always miss them...) BBC Local Radio, providing genuinely useful
> community services through their carelines... Do you think this would
> continue under a commercial management?
They could be funded directly from the public purse and considered as a public
service with the government assuming everyone has a radio receiver of some
sort. The amount of money required to maintain the system and its quality will
only be a miniscule fraction of the total taxation revenue anyway. I did hear
that if a radio licence still existed its annual cost would only be in the
£1.50 region.
>
> As for not paying a TV licence allowing people on a low income to afford Pay
> TV. The "Full basic" - i.e. non films, non sport - Sky Family package is
> £16 per month... Annually almost twice the licence fee...
>
> Sorry - can't agree with your argument - probably pointless to try to reply
> to it - but I feel very strongly that the BBC is worth defending.
In its present form or as a totally different institution ?
Nick Jeffery
> It's hardly public service broadcasting when people have to pay for
> it.
This message is off-topic for uk.tech.broadcast
Please take it elsewhere.
Nick.
Stephen Neal
Nick Jeffery wrote in message <101243359...@iapetus.uk.clara.net>...
Agreed and apologies.
Steve
>
>Nick.
>
>
Amy
>
> This message is off-topic for uk.tech.broadcast
>
> Please take it elsewhere.
>
Shouldn't that be "This DISCUSSION is off-topic"?
Or are you suggesting that the other posters in the thread were
somehow more "on topic" than I was?
Amy.
--
Amy
> In an article, Amy <amy_ju...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > if the licence fee were abolished, the BBC could continue as
> > it is - you'd have adverts
>
> As it is!? "you'd have adverts..."?? As it is?!
>
> Oh yes, Commercial breaks during the Proms
Well you could just watch a tape of last year's - they're all the
same.
> [and] at regular intervals throughout Films,
The films shown on BBC are ancient anyway. You could spend your
ex-license fee money on a film channels package - much more choice.
Amy.
--
charles.hope
Amy <amy_ju...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
> news:<a37fgk$84p$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > >Many would disagree - I think Murdoch summed it up when he called the
> > >licence fee an "evil tax".
> >
> > I wouldn't take my morality guidance on what is good and evil from Mr
> > Murdoch... I suspect he is just very annoyed that Britain has such a
> > strong public service broadcasting establishment
> It's hardly public service broadcasting when people have to pay for
> it.
>
Somebody has to.
oranj
than analogue
to my eyes. check out the picture on S4C digital if you can get it. its like
watching a DVD.
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:ntrt4uk1raq06tmph...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:25:19 +0000 (UTC), "Roger Mellie"
> <roger....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> >news:kujt4u85eb7lgrc0o...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Digital is of vastly inferior quality to analogue
> >
> >Is it really ? Can you justify this statement ?
> >
> >I would argue that, under equivalent reception conditions, digital is as
good
> >as, if not better than analogue. Please remember that digital
transmissions
> >are much lower in power and most often it's people in fringe reception
areas
> >that complain when they can't get perfect digital pictures. If you are
> >receiving digital transmissions at the same signal strength as good
analogue
> >ones and you still get inferior quality, then you have a serious problem
with
> >your installation.
> >
> I'm speaking from the point of view of an engineer who has designed
> and installed several TV networks (Hong Kong, the middle East) in both
> analogue and digital formats. I can judge picture quality on the
> normal CCIR scale to an accuracy of +/- .2 most of the time on an
> analogue picture by eye. My TV at home runs from an antenna with good
> line-of-sight to Crystal Palace - and no ghosts. I need to attenuate
> the signal to prevent intermodulation. PAL I, when it is good, is
> about as good as you can get.
>
> Certainly the quality of the analogue signal has deteriorated over the
> last few years, but that has happened as a result of the amount of
> digital processing in the signal path. Certainly most sports have
> suffered dreadfully - cricket balls disappearing when they are hit,
> racing cars leaping across the screen in a series of jumps. These are
> all obvious digital artefacts that everybody in the industry accepts -
> and they didn't happen with analogue.
>
> As for the "last mile" home delivery, compression means that a great
> deal of fine detail has disappeared. Primary signal processing has
> caused that. When compressing, you need a disproportional amount of
> data to provide it, so you don't get it. Also, for reasons I can't
> understand, there is a constant soup of noise behind digital pictures.
> Finally, probably in an attempt to recover some sharpness, all the
> digital pictures I have seen exhibit what looks very much like ringing
> around edges.
>
> Things will of course never improve. The pressure is on (in digital
> radio as well) to cram more programmes into the multiplexes. That
> means a constant downward spiral of quality.
>
> But I have to say most people don't care. Look at the average analogue
> TV in the average house and there will be ghosts; the colour control
> will be wound up to just short of luminous. So people get pretty much
> what they deserve. Maybe digital will suit them after all.
oranj
"Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
news:a2nktg$eee$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> charles.hope wrote in message <4afd917b7ac...@argonet.co.uk>...
> >In article <3C4EE4ED...@niobiumfive.co.uk>,
> > The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Is digital terrestrial really needed as a replacement for analogue
> >> terrestrial ? I still can't see what is wrong with satellite or cable.
> >
> >> IMO satellite dishes look a darn sight neater than UHF aerials. Infact
> >> if satellite dishes were around 40 years ago and Yagi aerials were
> >> invented today they would probably be banned by most councils for being
> >> visually obtrusive.
> >
> >Some landlords ban dishes, portables don't work with them and there are
> >places where it is impossible to receive from satellite.
>
> Agreed - and call me paranoid - but I'd prefer my TV to be available
> independent of a satellite network operated by a company based in
> Luxembourg, and encrypted / EPGed using a proprietary system operated by a
> commercial company.
>
> I think we do have to find a way of making DTT work if we are to switch
off
> analogue - DCab and DSat are nice additions - but not replacements for
> terrestrial free-to-air transmissions.
>
> Steve
>
> >
> >
>
>
oranj
"Amy" <amy_ju...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a51de.020129...@posting.google.com...
Robert Foreman
>David Crossman <da...@NOJUNKdareks.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ant29232...@freeserve.co.uk>...
>> In an article, Amy <amy_ju...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > if the licence fee were abolished, the BBC could continue as
>> > it is - you'd have adverts
>>
>> As it is!? "you'd have adverts..."?? As it is?!
>>
>> Oh yes, Commercial breaks during the Proms
>
>Well you could just watch a tape of last year's - they're all the
>same.
>Amy.
>--
I've yet to see the same piece performed twice during the Proms,
televised or otherwise, with the exception of the second half of the
Last Night. But then, last year's Last Night didn't contain the
traditional pieces.
Back to sleep...
Robert Foreman
rwf24@spam_is_naughty.cam.ac.uk
oranj
People usually pay for public services, that`s why they are called public
services.
"Amy" <amy_ju...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a51de.020130...@posting.google.com...
oranj
output.
"Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
news:a2nesb$lli$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Jamie Powell wrote in message
> <86c713b4.0201...@posting.google.com>...
> >"Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
> news:<a2n20i$f9p$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> [snip]
>
> >The increased sharpness, detail and life-like tracking of movement far
> >makes up for the slight grain and combing. And the latter isn't half
> >as pronounced as a UK pal->mpeg->pal converted transmission, which
> >ends up having combing added twice over. We've had this conversation
> >before... :-)
> >
>
> It is interesting to see that different people find different artefacts
> annoying. Same arguments seem to apply with 100Hz TVs. I can't watch the
> things (even the latest Sonys look better to me in DRC50 not DRC100) - yet
> other people swear by them!
>
> I will agree that PAL->MPEG->PAL is horrid - and I don't much like
> PAL->MPEG->RGB. Where I enjoy digital is YUV->MPEG2->RGB where there is
no
> PAL at all! But as you say - we've had this conversation before!
>
> Steve
>
> >Jamie.
>
>
Anthony
news:a37elp$pkj$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> "Amy" <amy_ju...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5a51de.020129...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Many would disagree - I think Murdoch summed it up when he called the
> > licence fee an "evil tax". I for one find it difficult to tell the
> > difference between BBC Children's programmes and "normal" BBC
> > programming half the time!
> > Their news is biased and often inaccurate, documentaries uninnovative
> > and repetative, and the rest I find just too pathetic to even
> > criticize.
>
> Do you really think there are many people who would rather watch Sky One
in
> preference to BBC One ?
Sky One is admittedly very poor now (some would argue it's always been that
way, but they used to show more quirky US programming in the beginning, ie
Picket Fences) - But if I were forced to choose between BBC 1 and Sky One I
know which one I'd pick, Sky One. They've got Simpsons, Futurama, X-Files -
well that's it, but the only good thing about BBC 1 is News24 through the
night! (Nice and handy if you're staying at a friends without digital TV and
you can't sleep)
> I for one find it difficult to tell the difference between Children's
> programmes and "normal" Sky programming half the time!
> Talk about repetitive ! Does a whole night of "The Simpsons" really appeal
to
> anybody ? And "Friends" is hardly quality television.
I could be locked in a cell with a TV showing nothing but The Simpsons and
I'd never get bored! Well as long as they weren't showing season one ad
nauseum.
> Regarding Sky News, many beleive IT is biased and often inaccurate - how
can
> it be otherwise when it's financed by an individual whose only interest is
in
> making money out of it.
Sky News has become very tacky looking of late but it's still a good news
channel IMHO and far from biased - No more so than any other TV news outlet.
As for a certain individual making money out of it, I believe the channel
has never turned a profit and is unlikely to do so in the near future.
Basically it's a "loss-leader".
--
Today's post is brought to you by these idiots:
ya...@ix.netcom.com
joejoe...@yahoo.com
Amy
> Cut the crap. BBC = quality, Sky = trash. ITV is somewhere in between.
> People usually pay for public services, that`s why they are called public
> services.
Or maybe you're just full of shit.
twat.
Amy.
--
Nick Jeffery
*Plonk*
Nick.
Nick Jeffery
> People usually pay for public services, that`s why they are called public
> services.
This is off-topic, top-posted, and untrimmed.
Please take it somewhere other than uk.tech.broadcast
Bongo
> As for not paying a TV licence allowing people on a low income to afford
Pay
> TV. The "Full basic" - i.e. non films, non sport - Sky Family package is
> £16 per month... Annually almost twice the licence fee...
But nearly the same as the cost of the BBC to the average licence paying
taxpayer. ( £109 + WSR + over-75s subsidy + approx 9% of running costs of
Magistrates Courts + debt counselling + imprisonment costs + costs to
consumers
of goods/services advertised on the beeb + wages of certain people at DCMS )
PeterK
a different name way back then.
They called it "Television". I seem to recall that it involved putting a
photograph onto a spinning drum with another machine on the end of a
telegraph line drawing the picture onto paper on a similar drum.
Peter
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C56EA65...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
[snip]
>
> Some things don't quite work out right first time but take off later. Fax
machines are
> one of them. Perfected in the 1920s but rarely used until the 1980s.
>
> >
[snip]
>
Jamie Powell
> All these people moaning about digital tv, must be watching with composite
> output.
Err.... no. Acquire clue before opening mouth.
Jamie.
David Crossman
> The films shown on BBC are ancient anyway.
Ah, of course, new is better...
> You could spend your ex-license fee money on a
> film channels package - much more choice.
I like the concept of a scheduler creating me a mix
of programmes for an satisfying evenings viewing...
Better stop this - you know it isn't technical.
--
David Crossman DGGB, LRPS
-------------------------
http://www.dareks.fsnet.co.uk/
The Technical Manager
> In an article, Amy <amy_ju...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The films shown on BBC are ancient anyway.
Most are not old classics but stuff which is out of the ark and not all
that good even when released. They are just space filling as they have
nothing better to show.
> Ah, of course, new is better...
>
> > You could spend your ex-license fee money on a
> > film channels package - much more choice.
>
> I like the concept of a scheduler creating me a mix
> of programmes for an satisfying evenings viewing...
>
Sounds like you want a restaurant that chooses its meals for the
customer.
I think that television channels should specialise rather than be jack
of all trades.
Harold Vermin
> DTT looks like crap, but cable digital is fine. Looks a damn site better
> than analogue to my eyes. check out the picture on S4C digital if you can
get it. its like
> watching a DVD.
Don't the digital cable companies just take the DTT off air and remultiplex
it?
The Technical Manager
Probably. Its like lots of cable TV providers worldwide take satellite
broadcasts and remultiplex them.