One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

On Thu, 13 May 2010 03:29:25 +0100, "jamie powell"
wrote:



I sense another made-up 'Bill Wright Bull**** Story' (TM) coming up, but he
wants one of you cretins to beg for it first.
In reality of course, if Bill's ever set foot in a prison, it'll have been as an
inmate.

He probably lost his chance of parole after breaking the telly.


I'd forgotten to kiullfile you on this PC - thanks for reminding me
what an arsewipe you are
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)

One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

Oh how I wish I could tell you all the story behind this. It's almost
incredible.

The question is, which would have been cheaper to provide, a Freeview box
per cell or whatever is being used to carefully provide just a select set of
channels?

Presumably, and to be future proof, the available channels are digital
anyway otherwise in a couple of years time there will be no TV capable of
receiving them. Or, there has to be another box in each cell not unlike
say, oh, a Freeview STB.

Paul DS.

One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:43:20 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

Oh how I wish I could tell you all the story behind this. It's almost
incredible.

The question is, which would have been cheaper to provide, a Freeview box
per cell or whatever is being used to carefully provide just a select set of
channels?

Presumably, and to be future proof, the available channels are digital
anyway otherwise in a couple of years time there will be no TV capable of
receiving them. Or, there has to be another box in each cell not unlike
say, oh, a Freeview STB.

Paul DS.

Not necessarily, the headend in, say, the governors office would
recieve the digital TV channels, but the distribution to the cells
doesn't need to be digital. It would give the prison authorities the
ability to control exactly what is delivered to the cells - possibly
for security or discipline reasons - someone will doubtless be aqlong
to correct any of the above should it be necessary :-)
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)

One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

The question is, which would have been cheaper to provide, a Freeview box
per cell or whatever is being used to carefully provide just a select set
of
channels?

Presumably, and to be future proof, the available channels are digital
anyway otherwise in a couple of years time there will be no TV capable of
receiving them. Or, there has to be another box in each cell not unlike
say, oh, a Freeview STB.

Paul DS.

Not necessarily, the headend in, say, the governors office would
recieve the digital TV channels, but the distribution to the cells
doesn't need to be digital. It would give the prison authorities the
ability to control exactly what is delivered to the cells - possibly
for security or discipline reasons - someone will doubtless be aqlong
to correct any of the above should it be necessary :-)

A reasonable comment but for costs sake, the prison will not want specialist
hardware. This means regular TVs and very soon regular TVs will not be able
to receive analogue so a sensible person would plan for having to use
digital TV.

Of course the words "reasonable" and "sensible" might not apply here since
this is a publicly funded contract and probably negotiated by people who
haven't a clue what they're buying.

Paul DS

One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
The question is, which would have been cheaper to provide, a Freeview box
per cell or whatever is being used to carefully provide just a select set
of
channels?

Presumably, and to be future proof, the available channels are digital
anyway otherwise in a couple of years time there will be no TV capable of
receiving them. Or, there has to be another box in each cell not unlike
say, oh, a Freeview STB.

Paul DS.

Not necessarily, the headend in, say, the governors office would
recieve the digital TV channels, but the distribution to the cells
doesn't need to be digital. It would give the prison authorities the
ability to control exactly what is delivered to the cells - possibly
for security or discipline reasons - someone will doubtless be aqlong
to correct any of the above should it be necessary :-)

A reasonable comment but for costs sake, the prison will not want
specialist hardware. This means regular TVs and very soon regular TVs
will not be able to receive analogue so a sensible person would plan for
having to use digital TV.


Surely all that would be required is digital receivers with the ability to
'securely' lockout undesired channels, as with parental control?

Of course the words "reasonable" and "sensible" might not apply here since
this is a publicly funded contract and probably negotiated by people who
haven't a clue what they're buying.

Paul DS

One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

Surely all that would be required is digital receivers with the ability to
'securely' lockout undesired channels, as with parental control?

Remember that this system will probably be in place for donkeys years. You
might be able to source all-similar sets that do this now, and in a
consistent way, but in 10 years time you will have many different models and
ways of configuring this as you've replaced borken and/or faulty sets with
new ones.

Far better to have a system with minimal smarts in the cells but based on
standard technology if possible.

Paul DS.

One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

On 13 May, 10:50, "Paul D.Smith" wrote:
The question is, which would have been cheaper to provide, a Freeview box
per cell or whatever is being used to carefully provide just a select set
of
channels?

Presumably, and to be future proof, the available channels are digital
anyway otherwise in a couple of years time there will be no TV capable of
receiving them. *Or, there has to be another box in each cell not unlike
say, oh, a Freeview STB.

Paul DS.

Not necessarily, the headend in, say, the governors office would
recieve the digital TV channels, but the distribution to the cells
doesn't need to be digital. It would give the prison authorities the
ability to control exactly what is delivered to the cells - possibly
for security or discipline reasons - someone will doubtless be aqlong
to correct any of the above should it be necessary :-)

A reasonable comment but for costs sake, the prison will not want specialist
hardware. *This means regular TVs and very soon regular TVs will not be able
to receive analogue so a sensible person would plan for having to use
digital TV.

"Very soon"? Doubt that. _Some_ TV manufacturers may remove the
functionality quite soon, though it'll probably be in the chipsets for
years to come, and many TVs will still expose that functionality.

Given the complexity of DVB-T2 decoding (soon to be standard), the
silicon real estate of analogue decoding is probably unnoticeable in
comparison.

Cheers,
David.

One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

On Wed, 12 May 2010 20:02:27 +0100, "Brian G"
wrote:

Well I can only agree with the prisoner. Has anyone watched this new
Prisoner? I saw/well heard/ a clip. No thanks I thought.

I missed the first episode because it looked from Digiguide that it
was being repeated but the repeat turned out to be the original
Patrick McGoohan series, also being repeated.

I watched the second epsiode and was glad I'd missed the first.

One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 May 2010 03:29:25 +0100, "jamie powell"
wrote:



I sense another made-up 'Bill Wright Bull**** Story' (TM) coming up, but
he
wants one of you cretins to beg for it first.
In reality of course, if Bill's ever set foot in a prison, it'll have been
as an
inmate.

He probably lost his chance of parole after breaking the telly.


I'd forgotten to kiullfile you on this PC - thanks for reminding me
what an arsewipe you are


You don't expect anyone to believe, even for an instant, that you forgot
having your real personality exposed.

Roger R

One for Bill - to comment on & to work on!
 

On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:16:26 +0100, "Roger R"
wrote:




You don't expect anyone to believe, even for an instant, that you forgot
having your real personality exposed.

Roger R


Do let me know when the above is available in English
--
Cheers

Peter