Home cinema - 250,000 freeview boxes not working?

HomeCinemaBanter (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/index.php)

- UK digital tv (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - 250,000 freeview boxes not working? (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/showthread.php?t=59920)

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

Sorry if this has already been discussed on here but I read in the
paper today that a load of freeview boxes have stopped working. Why?
Have they switched all multiplexes from 2K to 8K or is it some other
reason?

B2003

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

Boltar wrote:
Sorry if this has already been discussed on here but I read in the
paper today that a load of freeview boxes have stopped working. Why?
Have they switched all multiplexes from 2K to 8K or is it some other
reason?

Not a 2k/8k thing, but rather the split NIT.

See the current thread; 'What made 1% of Freeview boxes "stop working"?'

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote:
Sorry if this has already been discussed on here but I read in the
paper today that a load of freeview boxes have stopped working. Why?
Have they switched all multiplexes from 2K to 8K or is it some other
reason?

Not a 2k/8k thing, but rather the split NIT.

See the current thread; 'What made 1% of Freeview boxes "stop working"?'

Link to article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-obsolete.html

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

On 14/08/2008 10:51, Commander Gideon wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-obsolete.html

What a completely *useless* article!

"At that time no-one could conceive that this would happen"

Apart, that is, from every other manufacturer before and since whose
boxes have coped with the change by meeting the full specification.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

Andy Burns wrote:
On 14/08/2008 10:51, Commander Gideon wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-obsolete.html

What a completely *useless* article!

"At that time no-one could conceive that this would happen"

Apart, that is, from every other manufacturer before and since whose
boxes have coped with the change by meeting the full specification.

The full sentence adds :
".......and we certainly had no intention of selling boxes that would
not work in a few years' time.'"

AIUI they laughed at the idea of producing a box that actually fully met
the published standard! They were too busy rushing to market.

And the previous statement :

"Daewoo commercial manager Scott Purdom said: 'The two boxes from Daewoo
that were affected were made before the digital tick logo, which set a
standard for digital TV (in 2004)."

NO! Use of the digital tick required manufacturers to meet the
standard set in 1996?

Richard

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

Yeah, but assuming they know the number of people it might affect,
effectively saying nothing was, in my view just taking the **** out of the
viewers.

You don't matter dear viewer, you can just spend that dosh and buy another,
best not say anything before hand then, in case they notice and try to get
a new box subsidised by us.

This crap about the tick symbol is complete rot, if someone had had their
eye n the proper type approval the boxes would never have got to the public
in an unfixable condition to work on the system

I'd also like to know why they did not start of with a split nit even if it
was not strictly needed then. After all, when teletext came out we had many
test pages to make sure the decoders did their job!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
On 14/08/2008 10:51, Commander Gideon wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-obsolete.html

What a completely *useless* article!

"At that time no-one could conceive that this would happen"

Apart, that is, from every other manufacturer before and since whose boxes
have coped with the change by meeting the full specification.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

"Commander Gideon" wrote in message
...

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote:
Sorry if this has already been discussed on here but I read in the
paper today that a load of freeview boxes have stopped working. Why?
Have they switched all multiplexes from 2K to 8K or is it some other
reason?

Not a 2k/8k thing, but rather the split NIT.

See the current thread; 'What made 1% of Freeview boxes "stop working"?'

Link to article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-obsolete.html

"'It is an unfortunate consequence of technology evolving."

No it's not, it's rank bad planning by someone (probably not the people who
made the box).

In my sector we make such network upgrades all the time (well not literally)
and the first rule is that they are backwards compatible. It's not rocket
science, it's graduate entry level engineering.

tim

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

tim..... wrote:

In my sector we make such network upgrades all the time (well not literally)
and the first rule is that they are backwards compatible. It's not rocket
science, it's graduate entry level engineering.

As is reading the DVB-T spec (not changed since 1996) properly in the first place.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

On 14 Aug., 19:52, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
Nit is a very unfortunate *abbreviation I always thought in this case

I can just imagine *in the future, 2,000 die as pacemaker software updated.

Sorry, I have an evil mind today.

That is a very real scare - that only one bit change in
a program and something very different happens in
the real world

But is this 'NIT case' is is nothing but sloppiness in
the development of these boxes.

Lars :)

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

In article , Tim..... wrote:
Link to article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...00-TV-screens-
blank-upgrade-leaves-Freeview-boxes-obsolete.html

"'It is an unfortunate consequence of technology evolving."

No it's not, it's rank bad planning by someone (probably not the people
who
made the box).

In my sector we make such network upgrades all the time (well not
literally)
and the first rule is that they are backwards compatible. It's not rocket
science, it's graduate entry level engineering.

But it wasn't a "network upgrade". The network has continued to operate
within the original published specification.

To be "backwards compatible" with the affected boxes, the network would have
to be compatible with equipment that wasn't made properly in the first
place, which is absurd. It's quite clear who is to blame.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

Brian Gaff wrote:
Yeah, but assuming they know the number of people it might affect,
effectively saying nothing was, in my view just taking the **** out of the
viewers.

You don't matter dear viewer, you can just spend that dosh and buy another,
best not say anything before hand then, in case they notice and try to get
a new box subsidised by us.

This crap about the tick symbol is complete rot, if someone had had their
eye n the proper type approval the boxes would never have got to the public
in an unfixable condition to work on the system

I'd also like to know why they did not start of with a split nit even if it
was not strictly needed then. After all, when teletext came out we had many
test pages to make sure the decoders did their job!

Brian

Did these test pages include packets 24 - 31?

Their use was not actually specified in the original "UK Teletext
Specification" (although there was probably a reference to the
possibility of these packets - or rows, as they were described at the
time - being transmitted in the, then, future.)

I designed a test page[1] for The Stock Exchange "TOPIC"[2] system,
which was a wired teletext[3] service, using a cranky BT Viewdata[4]
editing machine which only displayed the early, experimental features.

To use such features as double height, background colour, etc., I had to
enter a series of escape sequences, the results of which I could not see!

Being an engineer, I only had limited access to this machine (of course)
and could only see the results and (I'm pleased to say) occasional
error, afterwards.

Things improved, of course, after the system went live and expanded.
Closed User Groups were introduced for member firms to provide
information to their clients – merchant banks, etc. The youngsters who
input information into these groups soon discovered that double height
text concealed the following row and amused themselves accordingly!

The addition of printers had always been on the agenda but the
difficulty was sourcing machines capable of handling teletext pages (the
half, quarter and three-quarter symbols were very important in this
application, as they were used on virtually every page displaying equity
prices!)

Eventually a suitable dot matrix printer with modified firmware was
introduced. However, it was incapable of displaying double height (and
other teletext enhancements).

As soon as they became available, the place erupted! The handiwork of
the ‘clever’ youngsters, who had (as they thought) hidden comments about
their clients - often in anglo-saxon, I understand – started appearing
on printouts in offices throughout the city and beyond! Oops!

Terry

[1] This was based on a page intended for transmission on Oracle in the
event of failure of an incoming network feed. I modified it to include
tests of all specified teletext features and it was intensively used for
terminal acceptance testing.

[2] Originally, teletext was going to be used to expand a 22 channel
cable network already used by the Stock Exchange, and driven from an
existing system, EPIC (Exchange Price Information Computer). Thus TOPIC
stood for Teletext Output Price Information Computer. However, as city
firms were starting to migrate outside the city and beyond the reach of
the TV network, the decision was made to adopt a wired approach - using
private circuits - which operated at 9600bps within the city telephone
are, eight times as fast as BT's own dial-up service. (As the only
suitable modems at the time would only operate on 'metallic' circuits,
only 1200bps was available beyond the local area - oh how the times have
changed!)

[3] “Wired Teletext” to differentiate it from “Broadcast Teletext”. At
the time, BT were trialling a dial-up system known as Viewdata. Wired
Teletext was the generic term.

[4] When BT came to register “Viewdata” as a trade mark, they were
refused on the grounds that the term 'view data' described exactly what
it did and should be available to all. BT opted for a new “Prestel” name
and I’ve never heard the term “wired teletext” again from that day to this

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

In article , Andy Burns
writes
On 14/08/2008 10:51, Commander Gideon wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...screens-blank-
upgrade-leaves-Freeview-boxes-obsolete.html

What a completely *useless* article!

It's the Daily Wail. What do you expect?

--
(\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html
(")_(") http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:40:49 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Burns
writes
On 14/08/2008 10:51, Commander Gideon wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...screens-blank-
upgrade-leaves-Freeview-boxes-obsolete.html

What a completely *useless* article!

Please tell me why it is a useless article? I have an early Labgear
DTT100 (Setpal) box and last week wanted to set it up for some
visitors as I keep it with a TV in a guest bedroom. Needless to say,
it wanted to rescan and then could not find any digital services.
Until I saw this posting I thought it had just "died". Now I know
better! Is there any way to get it working again as I don't really
want to bin it? Yes, it did cost £100 as they all did at that time.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:46:45 +0100, ChrisW wrote:
Please tell me why it is a useless article?

The fact that you need to ask the question

Is there any way to get it working again

after reading the article proves the uselessness of the article.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

ChrisW wrote in
:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:40:49 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy
Burns writes
On 14/08/2008 10:51, Commander Gideon wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-000-TV-screen
s-blank-
upgrade-leaves-Freeview-boxes-obsolete.html

What a completely *useless* article!

Please tell me why it is a useless article? I have an early Labgear
DTT100 (Setpal) box and last week wanted to set it up for some
visitors as I keep it with a TV in a guest bedroom. Needless to say,
it wanted to rescan and then could not find any digital services.
Until I saw this posting I thought it had just "died". Now I know
better! Is there any way to get it working again as I don't really
want to bin it? Yes, it did cost £100 as they all did at that time.

Perhaps you could try the "it's not fit for purpose" with the local Trading
Standards as it's clearly a DVB-T box that does not conform to the DVB-T
standard. You never know but Labgear might replace it for you.

Peter

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

On 17/08/2008 18:46, ChrisW wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:40:49 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Burns
writes
On 14/08/2008 10:51, Commander Gideon wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...screens-blank-
upgrade-leaves-Freeview-boxes-obsolete.html

What a completely *useless* article!
Please tell me why it is a useless article?

Because it gives a distorted view of the facts; Making out that
Freeview is to blame for changing the service, rather than the
manufacturer being to blame for producing a faulty product.

Until I saw this posting I thought it had just "died". Now I know
better!

OK, perhaps marginally better than useless, but phrases such as

"At that time no-one could conceive that this would happen ..."

"It is an unfortunate consequence of technology evolving"

are clearly false.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

"ChrisW" wrote in message
Please tell me why it is a useless article? I have an early Labgear
DTT100 (Setpal) box and last week wanted to set it up for some
visitors as I keep it with a TV in a guest bedroom. Needless to say,
it wanted to rescan and then could not find any digital services.
Until I saw this posting I thought it had just "died". Now I know
better! Is there any way to get it working again as I don't really
want to bin it? Yes, it did cost £100 as they all did at that time.

No we been had.
Daewoo not interested, retailer will not help because I no longer have
receipt.
If you have yours go back to shop for money back or replacement.
Is this going to be on BBC Watchdog? Mind you BBC is part of Freeview so
they might avoid the issue.

I wonder if changes to transmission in the future will find other boxes
going off.
--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

David wrote:

Is this going to be on BBC Watchdog?

Do you think for one moment that the muppets on that show would even begin
understand the actual problems and issues ?

(Having said that, I did receive a £1500 cheque from Vauxhall thanks to the
programme)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:11:09 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
Do you think for one moment that the muppets on that show would even
begin understand the actual problems and issues ?
Which begs the question, whose hidden hands are manipulating the muppets?

The logical consequence of that means that the show is not as independent
and transparent as the BBC would like people to believe.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

J G Miller wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:11:09 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
Do you think for one moment that the muppets on that show would even
begin understand the actual problems and issues ?
Which begs the question, whose hidden hands are manipulating the muppets?

The logical consequence of that means that the show is not as independent
and transparent as the BBC would like people to believe.

I don't think it's not as sinister as that. The programme ,like so many
others, is produced by staff who don't research what they're reporting properly.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

J G Miller wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:11:09 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
Do you think for one moment that the muppets on that show would even
begin understand the actual problems and issues ?
Which begs the question, whose hidden hands are manipulating the muppets?

The logical consequence of that means that the show is not as independent
and transparent as the BBC would like people to believe.

I don't think it's as sinister as that. The programme ,like so many others, is
produced by staff who don't research what they're reporting properly.

(Ignore another message that I attempted to cancel at 22:12, it was gibberish)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

250,000 freeview boxes not working?

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
(Ignore another message that I attempted to cancel at 22:12, it was
gibberish)

I've been a bit like that since Monday night as well.

Bill