Terestrial Digital TV
Steven Watkin
but just before digital TV was put 'on-air' programs said that there would
be 'free' channels to view.
So, what I was wondering is, can you buy a decoder set to *just* receive the
free channels, and where can I get one (+how much?) ?
Thanks in advance
Steven Watkin
Steve Brassett
<7a7hi0$k5q$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
retailer. The problem is that they cost £ 400 without an
OnDigital subscription, and £ 200 with. The subscription
for the minimum 12 months costs about £ 140. You could
always wait until the first year is up (Nov 1999) and see what
comes up on the second hand market.
--
Steve Brassett
remove "goaway." from address to email
Peter Morgan
<Ll...@watkinfamily.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>So, what I was wondering is, can you buy a decoder set to *just* receive the
>free channels, and where can I get one (+how much?) ?
AFAIK, the free channels would be the terrestrial + ITV2 + more BBC,
but unless you subscribe to ONDigital services, you have to pay full
price for the STB which would [AFAICR] be 399 quid. There's a big
subsidy to make them affordable at 199 quid if you use ONDigital
http://www.dtg.org.uk/viewers/vwr_indx.htm gives some info - with
6 channels you'd pay the 199 quid + 12x 8 = 295 [saving 100+]
or with all the subscription channels at 199 + 120 = 319, saving
80 quid, so you'd still get it cheaper with a subscription.
I doubt the set-top boxes will get much cheaper than that, so it
only remains for you to choose which one ?
[ I am at this same stage, considering buying a box, but not aware
whether there have been major problems with any particular makes ? ]
Peter.
Timothy Sinkins
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:11:13 -0000, "Steven Watkin"
> <Ll...@watkinfamily.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >So, what I was wondering is, can you buy a decoder set to *just* receive the
> >free channels, and where can I get one (+how much?) ?
>
> I doubt the set-top boxes will get much cheaper than that, so it
> only remains for you to choose which one ?
>
Um, over what timescale? over 12-18 months perhaps but longer than
that,
I doubt it.
STBs are little diferent from TVs, Videos, Mobile phones etc, for all of
which a base model now cost one fifth of the price of 10-15 years ago.
Improvements in technology suggest that STBs wil drop in price quicker
than this.
My guess is that the next major improvement will be STBs which output
the signals in multiple channels so that it is possible to watch one
channel while recording another or to enable curent videos to switch
between channels using their internal timer. (Whilst the average Sky
user has never had this feature, IMHO it will not be possible to
justify 'turning off' the analogue signals without it). I expect that
such a box would also need to retail at 400 GBP so curent basis boxes
will need to be priced accordingly.
In addition, the normal rules af supply and demand will bring the price
down (currently demand outstrips supply by a big way, but that won't
last forever).
So how will the prices move. My guess is in 3-4 years the current basic
boxes will sell for 199 without the subsidy (relevant if you only want
the fta channels). In 7 years they will be under 100.
At the same time TVs with integrated digital receivers will be further
developed and I would expect that if somebody where to offer a basic
TV with an integrated digital receiver in 7 years time it will cost
no more than the same TV today with an analogur tuner (so under 100
quid). Problem is, I don't expect anybody will offer such a beast
as DTV has been bundled with wide-screen by certain parts of the
industry so integrated digital receivers will probably only be
available with wide-screed which IMHO is massively over-priced
and over-rated.
Tim
Tim Marlow
Timothy Sinkins <etl...@guildford.ericsson.remove-this.se> wrote:
> At the same time TVs with integrated digital receivers will be further
> developed and I would expect that if somebody where to offer a basic
> TV with an integrated digital receiver in 7 years time it will cost
> no more than the same TV today with an analogur tuner (so under 100
> quid). Problem is, I don't expect anybody will offer such a beast
> as DTV has been bundled with wide-screen by certain parts of the
> industry so integrated digital receivers will probably only be
> available with wide-screed which IMHO is massively over-priced
> and over-rated.
Widescreen is certainly not overrated - it is bloody wonderful. The same
argument applies to its pricing as to STB's and IDTV's, i.e. within a year or
two widescreen prices will be no more than current equivalent 4:3's.
Personally, I cannot understand why manufacturers are still making 4:3. The
format is dead, or at least dying a slow death.
Sorry to rant - If you've not guessed, I'm a widescreen junkie.
Tim
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Timothy Sinkins
>
> In article <36C85815...@guildford.ericsson.remove-this.se>,
> Timothy Sinkins <etl...@guildford.ericsson.remove-this.se> wrote:
>
> > At the same time TVs with integrated digital receivers will be further
> > developed and I would expect that if somebody where to offer a basic
> > TV with an integrated digital receiver in 7 years time it will cost
> > no more than the same TV today with an analogur tuner (so under 100
> > quid). Problem is, I don't expect anybody will offer such a beast
> > as DTV has been bundled with wide-screen by certain parts of the
> > industry so integrated digital receivers will probably only be
> > available with wide-screed which IMHO is massively over-priced
> > and over-rated.
>
> Widescreen is certainly not overrated - it is bloody wonderful.
Well In did say it was my opinion. Your opinion obviously differs
and you're free to do so.
> The same
> argument applies to its pricing as to STB's and IDTV's, i.e. within a year or
> two widescreen prices will be no more than current equivalent 4:3's
I'd like to think this is the case but I'm not sure it will be.
Widescren
was just another of those things brought out by the manufactures (just
like Colour!, Flat screen, Nicam and surround sound) in order to sell
new
TV's into an otherwise saturated market. It is marketed as a premium
product, sells at a premium price and will do so just as long as there
are punters willing to pay the price.
Whilst initially, DTV looks like the new premium product, it isn't
really.
The plan is to turn the analogue transmissions off as soon a reasonably
practicable and re-use the frequencies for telecomms (god know's how!).
IMHO it will not be politicially expidient to do this unless an
afordable
DTV is available, so there are other pressures pushing down the price of
digital TVs.
>
> Personally, I cannot understand why manufacturers are still making 4:3. The
> format is dead, or at least dying a slow death.
Cos there is a large percentage of punters who are not prepared to pay
the asking price when they need to replace a worn-out telly. If you
only sell wide-screen TVs and someone's 2nd telly breaks they will
be more likely not to replace it, than pay silly money for wide-screen.
>
> Sorry to rant - If you've not guessed, I'm a widescreen junkie.
>
Why?
What on earth do you get for your money? Sorry I can see some benefit,
for example, in Nicam (though was never prepared to pay for that
either),
but wide-screen?
> Tim
>
Um, can't be negative about this!
>
Iain Friar
Timothy Sinkins wrote in message
<36C9713F...@guildford.ericsson.remove-this.se>...
TV is a visual medium. Surely if it can be changed to be "better" then thats
a good thing? The question is; is 16:9 better than 4:3, and I think it is.
Every time I go to the cinema I (mentally) compare the screen aspect ratio
to the wee square box at home, and I think that the reason so many films
that I really liked in the cinema look lack lustre at home is because of the
squareness of the image.
For sport 16:9 has to be a good thing; now you can see the who is going to
receive the pass as the rugby players move towards the screen.
Expensive? Yes. Waste of money? Depends how much time you spend watching TV
I think.
My opinion only.
Paul Beardow
Iain Friar wrote in message
<919175318.9235.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>TV is a visual medium. Surely if it can be changed to be "better" then
thats
>a good thing? The question is; is 16:9 better than 4:3, and I think it is.
It would have been even "better" if we had adopted the US standard and got
HDTV as well, unless of course I'm wrong and UK Digital TV *is* better
definition than analogue and not just less interference prone. I have also
read that sound quality can be worse than analogue because of the
compression, but I haven't heard a set so I can't justify that statement
with my own ears.
I saw some HDTV sets at SIGGRAPH last year and was blown away by the
quality - they are a real advance over current sets. I won't consider
shelling out on a Digital set until HDTV is a part of the equation, but that
might be a long wait since the whole chain needs to be upgraded first and
that costs stations big money.
Apologies if this has been discussed before BTW, I'm new to this group - I
was just catching up on the state of play.
Paul
Peter Pratten
<pbea...@uk.superscape.com> writes re HDTV
>Apologies if this has been discussed before BTW, I'm new to this group - I
>was just catching up on the state of play.
probably still be on your server so if you set your last downloaded date
back to the 9th you can get the opinions of many posters.
--
Peter Pratten
Timothy Sinkins
>
> Timothy Sinkins wrote in message
> <36C9713F...@guildford.ericsson.remove-this.se>...
> >
> >for example, in Nicam (though was never prepared to pay for that
> >either),
> >but wide-screen?
> >
>
Yes, but perhaps only in a co-incidental way. I watch TV because the
program I am watching is providing me with interesting information
or because it has a gripping (if I'm lucky) story-line. I don't
watch it for the visual experience. If I want the latter, I go to
the cinema, theatre, concert hall, museum, art gallery, or visit
a scenic location etc...
> Surely if it can be changed to be "better" then thats
> a good thing? The question is; is 16:9 better than 4:3, and I think it is.
But why? If it's simply better to have a bigger picture then why is
16:9 better than just buying a bigger 4:3 TV?
> Every time I go to the cinema I (mentally) compare the screen aspect ratio
> to the wee square box at home, and I think that the reason so many films
> that I really liked in the cinema look lack lustre at home is because of the
> squareness of the image.
Are you sure? Don't you think the reduction in size down from, what, 20
yards
wide to 20 inches might have an awful lot more to do with it?
> For sport 16:9 has to be a good thing; now you can see the who is going to
> receive the pass as the rugby players move towards the screen.
But the same effect could be achieved on a bigger square picture (though
admittidly more of the screen would be wasted).
>
> Expensive? Yes. Waste of money?
I never said this. I was referring to value for money.
>Depends how much time you spend watching TV I think.
Much Too much
>
> My opinion only.
ditto
Tim
u5...@my-dejanews.com
"Paul Beardow" <pbea...@uk.superscape.com> wrote:
> I saw some HDTV sets at SIGGRAPH last year and was blown away by the
> quality - they are a real advance over current sets. I won't consider
> shelling out on a Digital set until HDTV is a part of the equation, but that
> might be a long wait since the whole chain needs to be upgraded first and
> that costs stations big money.
I don't know of anyone planning to bring HDTV to UK anytime soon. BBC says
that the public don't want it. They surveyed billions of people and none of
them liked the idea of sitting closer to the set. They all wanted more choice
rather than high definition.
JJM
Paul Beardow
u5...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7aes3q$8qq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36c99...@news.uk.superscape.com>,
> "Paul Beardow" <pbea...@uk.superscape.com> wrote:
>
>> I saw some HDTV sets at SIGGRAPH last year and was blown away by the
>> quality - they are a real advance over current sets. I won't consider
>> shelling out on a Digital set until HDTV is a part of the equation, but
that
>> might be a long wait since the whole chain needs to be upgraded first and
>> that costs stations big money.
>
>I don't know of anyone planning to bring HDTV to UK anytime soon. BBC says
>that the public don't want it. They surveyed billions of people and none of
>them liked the idea of sitting closer to the set. They all wanted more
choice
>rather than high definition.
>
Since it was going to cost them a lot of money to introduce it, they would
wouldn't they? They managed to sneak in Digital Radio that sounds inferior
to normal analogue FM, so it's no surprise. The BBC seem to assume that
we're all some lower species of life that doesn't appreciate quality - you
can tell that by the poor quality of most of their programming that is aimed
to appeal to the lowest common denominator of several species of swamp life.
You really need to see a HDTV set to really appreciate it I suppose - as I
said before I saw some at SIGGRAPH and they were jaw-dropping, images so
real they looked like you were looking through a window, not a TV screen. If
these were on demo in shops in the UK, there'd soon be demand for it.
Oh well. I see that this was covered exensively earlier this month, so I'll
let it drop - I'm highly disappointed though at this lost opportunity to
really improve TV in the UK.
Paul
Iain Friar
Paul Beardow wrote in message <36caf...@news.uk.superscape.com>...
>
> The BBC seem to assume that
>we're all some lower species of life that doesn't appreciate quality - you
>can tell that by the poor quality of most of their programming that is
aimed
>to appeal to the lowest common denominator of several species of swamp
life.
>
Its true that the BBC make "lowest-common-denominator" type material; such
as Noels House Party and the National Lottery stuff. But in general the
quality of their content is far superior to anything else; either in the UK,
Europe, or the US.
In any case, however you view the quality of the BBC's content, this has
little to do with the quality of their hardware technology.
For me, when I heard about Digital terrestrial TV and the word
"subscriptions" I thought it was going to be Sky (an ironic name for such a
low-brow content supplier) all over again. When I heard that the BBC had
given its commitment to move everything over to digital I KNEW it was the
future.
Peter Pratten
<pbea...@uk.superscape.com> writes
>The BBC seem to assume that
>we're all some lower species of life that doesn't appreciate quality - you
>can tell that by the poor quality of most of their programming that is aimed
>to appeal to the lowest common denominator of several species of swamp life.
>
>said before I saw some at SIGGRAPH and they were jaw-dropping, images so
>real they looked like you were looking through a window, not a TV screen. If
>these were on demo in shops in the UK, there'd soon be demand for it.
To see the quality of HDTV you need very large screens (others have
commented that for the average size the difference is not noticable),
this means high expense in the screen, also high expense in the
technology and extra bandwidth. The bandwidth is not available for DTT
so it could only be possible via satelite.
The BBC's commitment is to provide quality service to all licence
payers. Providing HDTV would prevent DTT by removing the terrestial
channels which are already in short supply in order to serve an
extremely small number of viewers. Small scale means even higher cost
which would put off any chance of growing. In short a dead duck, at
least until analogue services are closed and free up airspace.
--
Peter Pratten
Paul Beardow
Peter Pratten <$pp{02}$@pratten.demon.co.uk> wrote in message ...
>
>The BBC's commitment is to provide quality service to all licence
>payers. Providing HDTV would prevent DTT by removing the terrestial
>channels which are already in short supply in order to serve an
>extremely small number of viewers. Small scale means even higher cost
>which would put off any chance of growing. In short a dead duck, at
>least until analogue services are closed and free up airspace.
Small scale may make it slow to catch on, but it would still be a lot faster
than no service at all. I think most people would prefer fewer channels of
quality programming instead of many channels of "Golden repeats from the
70's", which is what these channels do seem to consist of (film channels
aside). How many people watch channel 5 regularly? Channel 4 even? Most
people in the UK watch BBC1 and ITV for the vast majority of the time, so I
simply don't accept that having more channels is what people really want -
they want better quality, not quantity. More choice doesn't necessarily mean
more channels, it can mean more quality programmes to choose from on the
same channels.
I do find it strange that in a newsgroup dedicated to Digital TV technology
that more people aren't for HDTV even with a high start up cost - but
perhaps I'm looking at it all wrong. The US have managed to achieve it, and
Japan in analogue, so why is the UK different? (apart from having Auntie BBC
who knows best.)
Paul
Paul Dundas
p...@pratten.demon.co.uk "Peter Pratten" writes:
>
> The BBC's commitment is to provide quality service to all licence
> payers. Providing HDTV would prevent DTT by removing the terrestial
> channels which are already in short supply in order to serve an
> extremely small number of viewers. Small scale means even higher cost
> which would put off any chance of growing. In short a dead duck, at
> least until analogue services are closed and free up airspace.
Well why not just transmit it via satellite then? Two transponders
covering BBC1/2 would do the job.
The BBC have made it clear in the last few years that they are quite
happy to bring new developments to only selected areas (such as
NICAM which they still haven't completely implemented in 11 years)
so I can't see why a satellite only service would cause problems.
> --
> Peter Pratten
>
--
Paul Dundas