Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

wrote in message
...
For those who haven't yet seen the Ofcom consultation on future mobile
broadband spectrum.

"The 694-790 MHz band is expected to become a key band for mobile
broadband"

and references to studies at 470 - 694 MHz.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...-mobile-bb.pdf

If they can't get people to buy enough DAB sets to be able to switch off FM
there will be civil disobedience if they try to switch off DTT.

Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:26:05 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

I doubt it will occur till about 7 to ten years down the line though, as
lots of manufacturers want to sell their kit and if people think this is
going to happen they will not sell it will they?

It's a longer timescale than that, and they'll still be selling TV's.

Manufacturers will simply be fitting the appropriate interfaces to
ensure they can meet the upgrade/replacement market.
Already internet connections are being introduced. It's likely that
WiFi/UWB could be included to facilitate distribution of
satellite-derived channels to multiple receivers around the home.

Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:37:09 -0000, "Geoff Pearson"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
For those who haven't yet seen the Ofcom consultation on future mobile
broadband spectrum.

"The 694-790 MHz band is expected to become a key band for mobile
broadband"

and references to studies at 470 - 694 MHz.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...-mobile-bb.pdf

If they can't get people to buy enough DAB sets to be able to switch off FM
there will be civil disobedience if they try to switch off DTT.

You may think so, but in Germany they are *already* down to 10%
terrestrial reception without any persuation whatever.
Any spectrum changes will have to be consistent across Europe, and I
doubt that the UK will be able to persuade other countries to retain
spectrum for TV if they have no further use for it and want to switch
over to broadband.

Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

On Mar 19, 11:52*am, wrote:
"The 694-790 MHz band is expected to become a key band for mobile
broadband"
and references to studies at 470 - 694 MHz.

My reading is that 470-694 MHz is expected to remain allocated to
broadcasting for the foreseeable future, so I don't see it presaging
the end of terrestrial television altogether. They can perhaps
eventually release 694-790 MHz, for example by the increased use of
SFNs and DVB-T2.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:52:33 +0000, nemo wrote:

For those who haven't yet seen the Ofcom consultation on future mobile
broadband spectrum.

"The 694-790 MHz band is expected to become a key band for mobile
broadband"

and references to studies at 470 - 694 MHz.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...cfi-mobile-bb/
summary/cfi-mobile-bb.pdf

Try to look at this another way.

The frequencies which are currently being inefficiently allocated to a
single data stream - TV - can be repurposed so that they can carry mobile
data which can, of course, include TV programmes if the user so desires.

So stop being so selfish - the frequencies can be used far more
effectively if they are assigned to mobile operators.

You are all so last decade.

Cheers

Dave R

Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

NY wrote:

Plenty of caravans, canal boats etc. with satellite dishes.

Really?
Yes. Go to a canal and use your pretty little peepers.

How long does it take from arriving/mooring to being able to
point the dish in the correct direction?
It takes me about 60 seconds.

And for boats, how precise does
the alignment have to be, given that boats may drift or bob on their
moorings?
Not a problem in reality with inland boats.

I only ask because even when we had satellite fitted at our house, it
took the installer a long time to line the dish up correctly after he'd
fitted it and the cables: he was up and down the ladder, tweaking it,
for ages.
He must have been a moron then.

It doesn't help that dishes are usually fitted so low down
(not at chimney level) so they can't always see over neighbours' roofs.
And being low down they're further from the satellite.

Bill

Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

David.WE.Roberts wrote:

You are all so last decade.

Cheers

Dave R
Excuse me young man! I'M last century and proud of it!

Bill

Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:43:06 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

David.WE.Roberts wrote:

You are all so last decade.

Cheers

Dave R
Excuse me young man! I'M last century and proud of it!

Yes, but he is absolutely correct.
There is nothing special about TV broadcasting that requires it to
have its own, discrete transport medium. TV is just another bunch of
digits, like all the others.

Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

On Mar 19, 9:27*pm, wrote:
There is nothing special about TV broadcasting that requires it to
have its own, discrete transport medium. TV is just another bunch of
digits, like all the others.

The key word there is "broadcasting". You can argue that a
unidirectional 'one source to many destinations' service isn't
necessarily most efficiently delivered using the same transport medium
as bidirectional, point-to-point, services.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
 

Richard Russell wrote:

The key word there is "broadcasting". You can argue that a
unidirectional 'one source to many destinations' service isn't
necessarily most efficiently delivered using the same transport medium
as bidirectional, point-to-point, services.

That's exactly what I would argue. The TCP/IP (or UDP/IP) stack is a
dreadful choice for broadcast of any data, because TCP(UDP)/IP is
designed from the bottom up for point-to-point (client-server)
non-real-time communications.

Using it for one-to-many real-time broadcasting is massively wasteful
and inefficient. Multicasting was bodged on at a later date, but it is
indeed a bodge - it swaps the parallel transmission of the same data
over the same pipes for the transmission of the same data from multiple
sources.

Of course, it can be done, as we all know - point-to-point
voice-over-IP and video-over-IP have been on the go for a long time,
despite the poor match between the data (real time) and the medium
(non-real-time). iPlayer is a great example of how well you can make
that work, despite the unsuitability of the medium. If you throw
enough spare non-real-time bandwidth at the problem, it works well
enough to be effectively real-time.

BUT - putting aside the theoretical niceties ("If we'd known you wanted
broadcast, we'd have designed it differently,"), the fact is that the
internet is all-pervasive and *will* do the job, even if it's a poor
fit. Therefore I reluctantly agree that it does make sense to use the
internet for broadcast, despite the fact that it offends my engineering
sensibilities at every level.

--
SteveT