What will happen at analogue switch-off?
Bert
got me to wondering what will happen at the big analogue switch-off...
Other than the obvious, what will hapen - specifically to the DVB broadcasts
in terms of power and capacity?
I heard that the signal power will be increased. I sthat true?
Also, will there eventually be new MUXes when the transmitters are not busy
transmitting analogue signals too, making space for more channels and the
ability to improve bitrates on the existing ones?
also...
It strikes me that there must be millions of portable (and hand-held) TVs
out there which rely on loop aerials and telescopic aerials used in
locations where a rooftop aerial is unavailable or impossible to provide.
Will hand-held TVs become a thing of the past? or will increased digital
signal power mean that digital versions become practical?
Bert
John Russell
"Bert" <MyFirstNameATTyahooDOTTCOMM> wrote in message
news:42845ebf.0@entanet...
There is an ever increasing fusion of technolgies. Mobile phones are now
capable of recieving streaming video and they don't have huge DVB type
aerials.
dylan
"Bert" <MyFirstNameATTyahooDOTTCOMM> wrote in message
news:42845ebf.0@entanet...
-increased power
-similar capacity, depends on 16/64qam
handhelds/portables will work if you have adequate signal, probably will be
better than now but still not designed for hand-hand use, particularly
indoor. DVB-H could be around in the future for handheld.
tedjrr
> ........also...
> It strikes me that there must be millions of portable (and hand-held) TVs
> out there which rely on loop aerials and telescopic aerials used in
> locations where a rooftop aerial is unavailable or impossible to provide.
> Will hand-held TVs become a thing of the past? or will increased digital
> signal power mean that digital versions become practical?
If anything handheld devices will become more prolific, and you'll have
DVB-H for txing to mobiles. At the point when analogue UHF Tv eiter
dies ar ceases to be significant, there are enhancements that happen to
DTT (DVB-T), such as resolved protection ratio issues leading to more
power, and more transmitters. Thus you get a much more stable DTT, an
the ability (say) for things like portable DVD players to have a DTT
reception facility.
As for all the old analogue devices, including handheld lcd TVs with
teloscolic aeriels? Most of these will be pretty past in by then, and
possibly just get chucked. DTT converter boxes will become smaller,
much cheaper and even battery powered, so you may even be able to glue
one on the back.
One issue that has been raised by a regular correspondent on
uk.tech.broadcast in the past regards legacy distribution. The
question ids this, whern all analogue TV tx has been dispensed with,
will there still be UHF channels that are protected for domestic use as
the output channels for STBs, VCRs DVDs and the like?
dylan
> One issue that has been raised by a regular correspondent on
> uk.tech.broadcast in the past regards legacy distribution. The question
> ids this, whern all analogue TV tx has been dispensed with, will there
> still be UHF channels that are protected for domestic use as the output
> channels for STBs, VCRs DVDs and the like?
If the goverment can't sell them ;o)
Tim Mitchell
Presumably the UHF tuners on TV sets will gradually disappear also as
they won't be needed any more for receiving broadcasts, so linking
devices by UHF will become a thing of the past anyway.
--
Tim Mitchell
dylan
> Presumably the UHF tuners on TV sets will gradually disappear also as
> they won't be needed any more for receiving broadcasts, so linking devices
> by UHF will become a thing of the past anyway.
>
> --
> Tim Mitchell
If the analogue tuners do disappear then distribution systems around houses
ie for VCR, SAT, will need something more expensive than now
Maybe the system will get replaced with digital, ie digital tuner, the only
snag is you'll need a COFDM modulator and upconvertor, which in time will
get cheaper.
DAB sounds worse than FM
You could use Wi-Fi for distribution around the house and UWB for close
range stuff.
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm
Max Demian
news:SxWdFoHt...@tega.co.uk...
> Presumably the UHF tuners on TV sets will gradually disappear also as they
> won't be needed any more for receiving broadcasts, so linking devices by
> UHF will become a thing of the past anyway.
What about 'analogue' teletext?
How am I going to read the subtitles on my opera laserdiscs if I need to buy
a new digital only TV?
--
Max Demian
Tim Mitchell
<max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
down composite video/scart just fine. You probably don't mean that, you
mean that TV's will no longer include teletext decoders, which is
possibly true.
--
Tim Mitchell
Paul
"dylan" <n...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:d622tk$9qd$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
The unit in question is probably this:
http://www.von-info.ch/hb9afo/datv_e.htm
Cost is about £500.
Would that help?
Paul
Donald McTrevor
"Bert" <MyFirstNameATTyahooDOTTCOMM> wrote in message
news:42845ebf.0@entanet...
(eek!),
> got me to wondering what will happen at the big analogue switch-off...
>
> Other than the obvious, what will hapen - specifically to the DVB
broadcasts
> in terms of power and capacity?
> I heard that the signal power will be increased. I sthat true?
> Also, will there eventually be new MUXes when the transmitters are not
busy
> transmitting analogue signals too, making space for more channels and the
> ability to improve bitrates on the existing ones?
I suppose we could have the existing 5 channels turned into digital
muxes, but then we wouldnot be able to turn up the power on the
exesting digital channels. I suspect a comprimise will be found with
another 2-3 digital muxes?
Max Demian
That's why I said, "What about 'analogue' teletext?"
--
Max Demian
John
"Bert" <MyFirstNameATTyahooDOTTCOMM> wrote in message
news:42845ebf.0@entanet...
Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.
Ad
> Thinking about my own TVs at home and lack of STBs on all 5 of them (eek!),
> got me to wondering what will happen at the big analogue switch-off...
>
> Other than the obvious, what will hapen - specifically to the DVB broadcasts
> in terms of power and capacity?
> I heard that the signal power will be increased. I sthat true?
> Also, will there eventually be new MUXes when the transmitters are not busy
> transmitting analogue signals too, making space for more channels and the
> ability to improve bitrates on the existing ones?
Power will be increased, so we are told, but another Mux or even two
have not been really been promised.
so I expect we will still have the same crap we got now, because then
they will push more channels into the space and do not have to worry
about upseting people, since anyone who wants T.v will have to use digital.
> also...
> It strikes me that there must be millions of portable (and hand-held) TVs
> out there which rely on loop aerials and telescopic aerials used in
> locations where a rooftop aerial is unavailable or impossible to provide.
> Will hand-held TVs become a thing of the past? or will increased digital
> signal power mean that digital versions become practical?
this is where there have been no thought and all Crown Castle and the
government wants is money, fill there own back pockets and they do not
care one bit about the public.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 00:35:32
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Ad
>>
>>
>
>
> There is an ever increasing fusion of technolgies. Mobile phones are now
> capable of recieving streaming video and they don't have huge DVB type
> aerials.
>
But it will cost people money. Do you really think this will happen for
free?
I got a nice portable T.v, which gives a good picture and since it is
used up here in the computer room, analogue is more than ample for it,
but in a few years time, I will be expected to buy a digital box for a
T.V that at that time will be worth less.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 00:38:57
Ad
>
>
>
>
> You could use Wi-Fi for distribution around the house and UWB for close
> range stuff.
>
>
Wi-Fi uses high end frequencies, over and above microwave.
We get enough problems with some people worried about mobile phones, can
you imagine what it will be like with Wi-Fi?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 00:43:42
Ad
>
> What about 'analogue' teletext?
>
> How am I going to read the subtitles on my opera laserdiscs if I need to buy
> a new digital only TV?
>
You will have at least another 10 years to buy an analouge T.V.
after all if have taken more than that to get where we are now.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 00:45:13
mike ring
news:3ekrqaF...@individual.net:
> Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.
>
That attitude won't get you a job at the Beeb
mike
John Russell
"Ad" <graph...@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:118aekh...@corp.supernews.com...
> John Russell wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is an ever increasing fusion of technolgies. Mobile phones are now
>> capable of recieving streaming video and they don't have huge DVB type
>> aerials.
> But it will cost people money. Do you really think this will happen for
> free?
My point is that current licencing sees the phone as a phone, supplied by
one type of company, and TV as TV, supplied by others. If phone type
technology works to supply video to small devices then TV companies should
be allowed to use it for broadcast TV.
John Russell
The japenses have already demonstrated how advanced multichannel TV should
work in the home. You would have a single multichannel decoder with a
terrabyte hard disk recoerder. This is connect via it's own network to
passive display devices (they don't have tuners!). You can route whatever
channel/recording you want to whatever passive display you want.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You could use Wi-Fi for distribution around the house and UWB for
>> close range stuff.
>>
>>
>
> Wi-Fi uses high end frequencies,
Wi-Fi uses 2.4 GHz, and (IIRC) 5.5 GHz, whereas visible light has a
frequency of around 600,000 GHz. Do you still think Wi-Fi uses "high end
frequencies", or just *higher frequencies*?
> over and above microwave.
According to this:
microwave goes up to frequencies which have wavelengths of 1 mm, which
means that microwave frequencies go up to 300 GHz. So Ad, no, Wi-Fi does
not use frequencies "over and above microwave" frequencies.
> We get enough problems with some people worried about mobile phones,
> can you imagine what it will be like with Wi-Fi?
When you're transmitting a Wi-Fi signal around the house most people
don't press their ear right next to the transmitting antenna. Then
again, this would go some way to explain why you come out with some of
the crap that you do come out with.
John_ZIZinvalid
<mike...@MICHAELbtinternet.com> wrote:
>> Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.
>>
>That attitude won't get you a job at the Beeb
In reality it that attitude the BBC exactly wants, as they
spend several thousands a year attempting to employ managers
with this type of dismissive attitude.
J
mike ring
news:69nb81pbh78d9psr5...@4ax.com:
If you look at News and Current Affairs output for a day, you will learn
more about wasting time speculating than I could tell you in a millenium
mike
John
"mike ring" <mike...@MICHAELbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96566ADFDD2CCmi...@130.133.1.4...
How wrong you can be. I work for the beeb already.
John
Ad
>
> My point is that current licencing sees the phone as a phone, supplied by
> one type of company, and TV as TV, supplied by others. If phone type
> technology works to supply video to small devices then TV companies should
> be allowed to use it for broadcast TV.
>
>
No doubt, but I bet it will not be for free, the other problem is how
long will batteries last on these phones?
I had just had a thought. It is bad enough with people going around more
interested in their mobile phones than looking where they are going as
it is.
Can you immagine what it will be like if they can watch T.V on them?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 18:50:08
Ad
>>
>>
>
>
> The japenses have already demonstrated how advanced multichannel TV should
> work in the home. You would have a single multichannel decoder with a
> terrabyte hard disk recoerder. This is connect via it's own network to
> passive display devices (they don't have tuners!). You can route whatever
> channel/recording you want to whatever passive display you want.
>
I am glad you said should work.
For a start we are not in Japan, and the second thing is, that if/when
it comes to this country, it will cost a fortune.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 18:51:51
Ad
>
>
> Wi-Fi uses 2.4 GHz, and (IIRC) 5.5 GHz, whereas visible light has a
> frequency of around 600,000 GHz. Do you still think Wi-Fi uses "high end
> frequencies", or just *higher frequencies*?
>
>
>
>>over and above microwave.
>
>
>
> According to this:
>
> http://geography.uoregon.edu/shinker/geog101/lectures/lec01/lec01_figs/electromagnetic-spectrum-fig2-6.gif
>
> microwave goes up to frequencies which have wavelengths of 1 mm, which
> means that microwave frequencies go up to 300 GHz. So Ad, no, Wi-Fi does
> not use frequencies "over and above microwave" frequencies.
>
I meant the ones that are in the microwave ovens, you think what these
waves do to your food, now think what the higher frequencies can do to you.
>
>>We get enough problems with some people worried about mobile phones,
>>can you imagine what it will be like with Wi-Fi?
>
>
> When you're transmitting a Wi-Fi signal around the house most people
> don't press their ear right next to the transmitting antenna. Then
> again, this would go some way to explain why you come out with some of
> the crap that you do come out with.
>
>
I most houses you will never be that far away from the souce of
transmission. My router is downstairs, my computer is upstairs, which
means that I am more or less sitting on the router.
How big do you think most houses are these days?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 18:55:45
mike ring
@individual.net:
>>
>>> Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.
>>>
>> That attitude won't get you a job at the Beeb
>>
>> mike
>
> How wrong you can be. I work for the beeb already.
> John
>
Ah, then you're among the *other* half; I used to be one of them
mike
John_ZIZinvalid
<mike...@MICHAELbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.
>>>>
>>>That attitude won't get you a job at the Beeb
>>
>> In reality it that attitude the BBC exactly wants, as they
>> spend several thousands a year attempting to employ managers
>> with this type of dismissive attitude.
>>
>If you look at News and Current Affairs output for a day, you will learn
>more about wasting time speculating than I could tell you in a millenium
Well it looks like the BBC has already got him.
J
mike ring
news:5lnd81tabdmalcsd3...@4ax.com:
>>If you look at News and Current Affairs output for a day, you will learn
>>more about wasting time speculating than I could tell you in a millenium
>
> Well it looks like the BBC has already got him.
>
Yup, and as I mixed up the two Johns, now I know why they got shot of me!
But you seemed able to sort it out!
mike ;o)
John_ZIZinvalid
<mike...@MICHAELbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>If you look at News and Current Affairs output for a day, you will learn
>>>more about wasting time speculating than I could tell you in a millenium
>>
>> Well it looks like the BBC has already got him.
>>
>Yup, and as I mixed up the two Johns, now I know why they got shot of me!
>
>But you seemed able to sort it out!
>
>mike ;o)
I got out in 1993, and looking back, I escaped at the right time.
J
mike ring
news:g66e819n9nifuun97...@4ax.com:
>
> I got out in 1993, and looking back, I escaped at the right time.
>
I lasted till 94 after a determined struggle as I was sure they couldn't
cope without me.
This turned out to be true!
The other effect was, due to redundancy/tax/pension rules, I worked 6
months for nowt.
Yup - zero, zip zilch, nada.
Bugrit
mike