De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

Hi All,

Have been dipping into the group for some time, to see what is avail
etc for Digical TV reception.

Having had a look at friends DTT and SKY installs and read a little on
here, I have to say i'm not sure why the guvermint is spending oodles
of our dosh in building a DTT network.

Bill sugested some time back that it would be better to give people in
remote areas a FTA or FTV satalite system rather than build expensive
repeater systems.

Having seen the superior (at least on the night I watched) quality of
satalite, i'm inclined to say it would have been better (and probably
cheaper) to have encouraged everyone onto this platform and thus
released more of the old analogue spectrum for selling off for more
appropriate use.

What does the team think?

De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

On 30 Jan 2006 02:21:40 -0800, wrote:

Hi All,

Have been dipping into the group for some time, to see what is avail
etc for Digical TV reception.

Having had a look at friends DTT and SKY installs and read a little on
here, I have to say i'm not sure why the guvermint is spending oodles
of our dosh in building a DTT network.

It is kind of strange. Terrestrial broadcasting is kind of obsolete
compared to satellite broadcasting. Satellite reception is usually
hassle free from just about anywhere, overlooking Sky's slightly
undersized minidish, but terrestrial reception can vary from one part
of your house to another.

I guess DTT can be explained through people's reluctance to abandon
weaker technology and I guess a governmental desire to maintain
control over the broadcast network.

This is not to say though that DTT cannot work perfectly fine in the
right region with a good installation. Unfortunately my location in
Maidstone, Kent can at best be called dodgy.

Bill sugested some time back that it would be better to give people in
remote areas a FTA or FTV satalite system rather than build expensive
repeater systems.

You forget the two rival systems matter.

Having seen the superior (at least on the night I watched) quality of
satalite,

Someone needs a spell checker for satellite.

i'm inclined to say it would have been better (and probably
cheaper) to have encouraged everyone onto this platform and thus
released more of the old analogue spectrum for selling off for more
appropriate use.

What does the team think?

Beyond satellite reception being superior in just about every way,
then there is still a market for terrestrial. Many households would
desire both Sky and Freeview.

So the end conclusion is... The market wants, the market gets.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
..

What does the team think?

I think little in the quaulity of terrestrial to satellite, but satellite
slightly better picture.
Sky is far superior as regards equipment and Programme guides etc.
All boxes work the same way, all remotes are the same, all are kept upto
date with over the air upgrades.
Wish I could say the same for the BBCs Freeview.

--
Regards
David

Please reply to News Group

De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi All,

Have been dipping into the group for some time, to see what is avail
etc for Digical TV reception.

Bill sugested some time back that it would be better to give people in
remote areas a FTA or FTV satalite system rather than build expensive
repeater systems.
What does the team think?

Are you suggesting that I can get satellite reception of my (Freeview)
channels for a simple one-off equipment and aerial charge ? Whilst there's
a choice, I'm not into paying monthly (or whatever) for a load of channels I
don't want, simply to get the one channel that interests me.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...



Are you suggesting that I can get satellite reception of my (Freeview)
channels for a simple one-off equipment and aerial charge ?

£150 one off to Sky for equipment and installation.
http://www.sky.com/skycom/article/0,...178747,00.html

--
Regards
David

Please reply to News Group

De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

David wrote:

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...



Are you suggesting that I can get satellite reception of my (Freeview)
channels for a simple one-off equipment and aerial charge ?

£150 one off to Sky for equipment and installation.
http://www.sky.com/skycom/article/0,...178747,00.html


Or buy a second hand sky system and either have it installed, or
install it yourself.

See
http://www.choiceforum.co.uk/blog/20...o-problem.html

For a brilliant article on how to do this.

Or buy a SKY package for approx £120 - £150 for a year and make sure
you cancel the subscription and it will then revert to offering just
the Freesat channels when the subscription runs out.

* Without a Freesat Card, you will just get Free To Air channels. This
includes all the BBC and ITV offerings plus some others. If you also
pay SKY £20 for a Freesat Card (which is included in the £150
package mentioned by David above), then you also get Free To View
channels (Including Channel 4 and 5 - These may or may not go Free To
Air soon).

Note, neither of theese options has the same channel list as Freeview,
though each have some others that Freeview don't.

See http://www.wickonline.com/fta.htm for listings.

De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

Malcolm Stewart wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi All,

Have been dipping into the group for some time, to see what is avail
etc for Digical TV reception.

Bill sugested some time back that it would be better to give people
in remote areas a FTA or FTV satalite system rather than build
expensive repeater systems.
What does the team think?

Are you suggesting that I can get satellite reception of my (Freeview)
channels for a simple one-off equipment and aerial charge ? Whilst
there's a choice, I'm not into paying monthly (or whatever) for a
load of channels I don't want, simply to get the one channel that
interests me.

You can get a range of channels free-to-air from Sky , but the lineup does
not exactly match freeview


--
Alex

Sig on old laptop - new one coming soon.
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

David wrote:

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...



Are you suggesting that I can get satellite reception of my (Freeview)
channels for a simple one-off equipment and aerial charge ?

£150 one off to Sky for equipment and installation.
http://www.sky.com/skycom/article/0,...178747,00.html

note *no* E4, More 4, Men & Motors etc

--
Regards
David

Please reply to News Group

De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

JPG wrote:


£150 one off to Sky for equipment and installation.
http://www.sky.com/skycom/article/0,...178747,00.html

note *no* E4, More 4, Men & Motors etc

Men and Motors is FTA on 'Sky' last time I looked ?

De-Lurk Plus Why Bother with DTT?
 

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:49:23 GMT, Cardman wrote:

|On 30 Jan 2006 02:21:40 -0800, wrote:

|It is kind of strange. Terrestrial broadcasting is kind of obsolete
|compared to satellite broadcasting. Satellite reception is usually
|hassle free from just about anywhere, overlooking Sky's slightly
|undersized minidish, but terrestrial reception can vary from one part
|of your house to another.

Not everyone in the UK can get satellite TV. There are those who have
posted here that the view of the satellites is totally blocked from all
parts their properties by hills trees and the like. Not to mention those
who can not have satellite dishes because of legal problems.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Please quote, with quote
character, previous post sniped to only the bit you are replying to.
Threads often contain 100s of posts dozens layers deep. Other people
use different newsreaders, they do not see or do what you see and do.