|
|
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
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 |
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 switch off terrestrial TV, that means that the only ways to receive TV will be: - satellite - cable - internet (ASDL or mobile) Cable and Internet charge subscription fees and, in the case of Internet, data usage fees once you get beyond an agreed level. Cable is only available in certain areas (mainly urban). Satellite requires you to have a dish and limits you to a fixed number of receivers, in that each receiver (TV, hard disc recorder etc) that wants to tune to a different channel needs a separate LNB at the dish, because satellite dishes unlike TV aerials don't supply the full spectrum of multiplexes simultaneously to the receiver. None of these are suitable for people who are mobile (canal boats, caravans) in areas of sparse population where there is no mobile coverage. |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
"NY" wrote:
wrote in message ... None of these are suitable for people who are mobile (canal boats, caravans) in areas of sparse population where there is no mobile coverage. Plenty of caravans, canal boats etc. with satellite dishes. Tim |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
On 19/03/2013 13:21, Tim+ wrote:
"NY" wrote: wrote in message ... None of these are suitable for people who are mobile (canal boats, caravans) in areas of sparse population where there is no mobile coverage. Plenty of caravans, canal boats etc. with satellite dishes. Tim Couldn't resist posting this: http://noproblem.org.uk/blog/sky-sat...th-no-problem/ Richard |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
"Tim+" wrote in message
... "NY" wrote: wrote in message ... None of these are suitable for people who are mobile (canal boats, caravans) in areas of sparse population where there is no mobile coverage. Plenty of caravans, canal boats etc. with satellite dishes. Really? How long does it take from arriving/mooring to being able to point the dish in the correct direction? And for boats, how precise does the alignment have to be, given that boats may drift or bob on their moorings? 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. 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. |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
"NY" wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message ... "NY" wrote: wrote in message ... None of these are suitable for people who are mobile (canal boats, caravans) in areas of sparse population where there is no mobile coverage. Plenty of caravans, canal boats etc. with satellite dishes. Really? Yes really. How long does it take from arriving/mooring to being able to point the dish in the correct direction? And for boats, how precise does the alignment have to be, given that boats may drift or bob on their moorings? I think Dickie Mint has answered this much better than I could. 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. 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. Hmm, maybe a problem with your installer. ;-) Tim |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:18:14 -0000, "NY" 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 switch off terrestrial TV, that means that the only ways to receive TV will be: - satellite - cable - internet (ASDL or mobile) Cable and Internet charge subscription fees and, in the case of Internet, data usage fees once you get beyond an agreed level. Cable is only available in certain areas (mainly urban). Satellite requires you to have a dish and limits you to a fixed number of receivers, in that each receiver (TV, hard disc recorder etc) that wants to tune to a different channel needs a separate LNB at the dish, because satellite dishes unlike TV aerials don't supply the full spectrum of multiplexes simultaneously to the receiver. There is no theoretical limit to the number of satellite receivers. A box called a Multiswitch can feed many receivers from one 4-way LNB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiswitch I have three Freesat boxes. Two are recorders with two tuners each and the third is a single tuner non-recording box. They are fed from an 8-output multiswitch that has input from a 4-way LNB. That means there are 3 spare outputs. All the outputs from the multiswitch are independent of one another. One seller's website: http://www.satellitesuperstore.com/multiswitch.htm I understand that some multiswitches can be cascaded. None of these are suitable for people who are mobile (canal boats, caravans) in areas of sparse population where there is no mobile coverage. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
In article , NY
wrote: Satellite requires you to have a dish and limits you to a fixed number of receivers, in that each receiver (TV, hard disc recorder etc) that wants to tune to a different channel needs a separate LNB at the dish, because satellite dishes unlike TV aerials don't supply the full spectrum of multiplexes simultaneously to the receiver. It is possible to get around this. e.g. use a system like those that put the outputs from all four onto one optical fibre for distribution around the home, and have suitable optical receivers for each 'TV' or 'recorder'. Or do something similar via a computer with a set of tuners feeding 'TVs' via ethernet. *BUT* this of course all adds to the costs and the work needed for a home install that is sufficient to avoid more work when someone wants to add another 'TV' to the home. So not exactly the "poor man's solution" to loss of DTTV! The basic problem here is that from a technical / engineering POV all the problems of losing DTTV access are solvable - if price is no object. BUT in reality, and in the timescale of the next 2-5 years, for many people the cost or inconvenience would be high. So the recent decison and the proposals to go further seem to be based on applying the H2G2 attitude. "Today is a golden age where no-one will be unable to access TV if DTTV is removed... well, no-one worth mentioning, anyway!" I don't see 50 quid and a free filter fixing this. Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
Well eventually they will get rid of terrestrial I suspect, but maybe they
will keep one channel for emergencies or something. The real snag with using sats as has been said is that its very much a fixed receiver thing. I know some ocean liners have it but not your average trawler! also, though, if the delivery is via radio waves from a mobile broadband system, that may well be made cheaper and hence as viable a as the current freeview. Who knows. If the sun cuts up rough in the next few years and trashes the sats, then what. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "NY" wrote in message ... 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 switch off terrestrial TV, that means that the only ways to receive TV will be: - satellite - cable - internet (ASDL or mobile) Cable and Internet charge subscription fees and, in the case of Internet, data usage fees once you get beyond an agreed level. Cable is only available in certain areas (mainly urban). Satellite requires you to have a dish and limits you to a fixed number of receivers, in that each receiver (TV, hard disc recorder etc) that wants to tune to a different channel needs a separate LNB at the dish, because satellite dishes unlike TV aerials don't supply the full spectrum of multiplexes simultaneously to the receiver. None of these are suitable for people who are mobile (canal boats, caravans) in areas of sparse population where there is no mobile coverage. |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
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? Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , NY wrote: Satellite requires you to have a dish and limits you to a fixed number of receivers, in that each receiver (TV, hard disc recorder etc) that wants to tune to a different channel needs a separate LNB at the dish, because satellite dishes unlike TV aerials don't supply the full spectrum of multiplexes simultaneously to the receiver. It is possible to get around this. e.g. use a system like those that put the outputs from all four onto one optical fibre for distribution around the home, and have suitable optical receivers for each 'TV' or 'recorder'. Or do something similar via a computer with a set of tuners feeding 'TVs' via ethernet. *BUT* this of course all adds to the costs and the work needed for a home install that is sufficient to avoid more work when someone wants to add another 'TV' to the home. So not exactly the "poor man's solution" to loss of DTTV! The basic problem here is that from a technical / engineering POV all the problems of losing DTTV access are solvable - if price is no object. BUT in reality, and in the timescale of the next 2-5 years, for many people the cost or inconvenience would be high. So the recent decison and the proposals to go further seem to be based on applying the H2G2 attitude. "Today is a golden age where no-one will be unable to access TV if DTTV is removed... well, no-one worth mentioning, anyway!" I don't see 50 quid and a free filter fixing this. Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
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 |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
... 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. -- Yes but.... In practice if the Interweb becomes the medium of delivery surely two things will happen:- 1. Viewing will drop so dramatically that the broadcasters will loose so much income they will be unable to continue; 2. Most 'viewers' will probably still watch the same things at the same time as they always have. The great advantage of one-to-all - be it terrestrial or satellite fed - is that it gives structure to viewing which most people I would suggest find acceptable and/or preferable. OK now and again there is inconvenience that programmes clash or they are on when you are out (remember the one about the Irish VCR.....?) but surely that is why god invented VCRs and PVRs? Finally, much of this 'drive' for net viewing I would suggest is coming from personages resident within the M25 which gets all of the perks more quickly than anywhere else - higher speeds, FFTC and eventually FTTH, 4G etc - which are not easily available to the vast majority of the country and certainly not to those who live off the beaten track. Until such time as some system architecture is available that can give a clean uncontested feed of at the very least 2Mb to every home then I would suggest that net viewing will not take off to any serious extent and that existing methods will continue. -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:31:55 -0000, "Woody"
wrote: Yes but.... In practice if the Interweb becomes the medium of delivery surely two things will happen:- No-one is saying that! Satellite is there to serve viewers who want immediate real-time viewing - apart from the minority of those who can't receive it. 1. Viewing will drop so dramatically that the broadcasters will loose so much income they will be unable to continue; What a strange assumption. TV is far too important to the majority of viewers for them to give up so easily. And satellite and internet broadcasting are actually cheaper for the broadcaster than terrestrial transmission. 2. Most 'viewers' will probably still watch the same things at the same time as they always have. As has been discussed elsewhere, this old model of TV watching is rapidly breaking down. People want to watch their own choice of material at the time that suits them. iPlayer and YourTube are increasingly popular, especially for the younger generation. The great advantage of one-to-all - be it terrestrial or satellite fed - is that it gives structure to viewing which most people I would suggest find acceptable and/or preferable. OK now and again there is inconvenience that programmes clash or they are on when you are out (remember the one about the Irish VCR.....?) but surely that is why god invented VCRs and PVRs? Finally, much of this 'drive' for net viewing I would suggest is coming from personages resident within the M25 which gets all of the perks more quickly than anywhere else - higher speeds, FFTC and eventually FTTH, 4G etc - which are not easily available to the vast majority of the country and certainly not to those who live off the beaten track. Until such time as some system architecture is available that can give a clean uncontested feed of at the very least 2Mb to every home then I would suggest that net viewing will not take off to any serious extent and that existing methods will continue. Yes, satellite will be there for *almost* everyone. |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
wrote in message
... On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:31:55 -0000, "Woody" 2. Most 'viewers' will probably still watch the same things at the same time as they always have. As has been discussed elsewhere, this old model of TV watching is rapidly breaking down. People want to watch their own choice of material at the time that suits them. iPlayer and YourTube are increasingly popular, especially for the younger generation. I never thought I'd admit this, until I got Windows Media Centre on my PC, which changed my viewing habits. I now very rarely watch anything as it's broadcast. Even if I do watch nearly-live, I start watching late (if it's a programme on a channel with commercials) and then skip the commercials as I'm watching it on time-slip. I've probably not seen a commercial at normal speed for several years now. Any programmes that I've recorded to watch later, I pass through VideoReDo to remove the commercials and continuity spam, especially if it's a programme I want to keep in my library to watch again and again. |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
On 19/03/2013 13:23, Dickie mint wrote:
On 19/03/2013 13:21, Tim+ wrote: "NY" wrote: wrote in message ... None of these are suitable for people who are mobile (canal boats, caravans) in areas of sparse population where there is no mobile coverage. Plenty of caravans, canal boats etc. with satellite dishes. Tim Couldn't resist posting this: http://noproblem.org.uk/blog/sky-sat...th-no-problem/ Richard A "Bill" has posted on the Noproblem blog that the page contains errors. Sue has asked where the errors are. Could "Bill" also post them here? The blog page was written by a non technical person for other boaters who asked her to, and who was simply passing on what she'd found to work! Richard |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:05:05 -0500, "Steve Thackery"
wrote: The TCP/IP (or UDP/IP) stack is a dreadful choice for broadcast of any data, [...] 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. Technological development seems to work like evolution. There's no central agency that understands it or would have the clout to organise a complete scrap and re-design, so new things are mindlessly tacked onto whatever is already there, the motivating force being local self-interest. Anything that either doesn't work, or works so well that it expands too rapidly for continued resources to support it will become extinct. Rod. |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
"NY" wrote in message
o.uk... wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:31:55 -0000, "Woody" 2. Most 'viewers' will probably still watch the same things at the same time as they always have. As has been discussed elsewhere, this old model of TV watching is rapidly breaking down. People want to watch their own choice of material at the time that suits them. iPlayer and YourTube are increasingly popular, especially for the younger generation. I never thought I'd admit this, until I got Windows Media Centre on my PC, which changed my viewing habits. I now very rarely watch anything as it's broadcast. [...] I've probably not seen a commercial at normal speed for several years now. Both of those have applied to me since 1988 when I bought my first VCR. And a fortiori since 1991 when I bought my second (to be used concurrently). -- Max Demian |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
In article , David.WE.Roberts
wrote: 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. You mean you'll be paying all our mobile charges to watch TV on our mobiles? How 'mobile' are the ones with a screen bigger than 27 inches? Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
Dickie mint wrote:
Couldn't resist posting this: http://noproblem.org.uk/blog/sky-sat...th-no-problem/ Richard A "Bill" has posted on the Noproblem blog that the page contains errors. Sue has asked where the errors are. Could "Bill" also post them here? The blog page was written by a non technical person for other boaters who asked her to, and who was simply passing on what she'd found to work! Richard It was me. The main fault is that the writer was obviously unaware of Freesat, so she writes as if satellite = Sky and Sky = satellite. So you have to have a Sky receiver. You have to have a Sky card. You have to pay Sky at least £20. This is all completely wrong. People who don't want to subscribe to Sky are much better off getting a normal Freesat box. If they get a Freesat recorder they can watch their stash of programmes where there's no dish signal. A Sky box will only play back if it's getting permission from Sky all the time via the dish. This is important for boaters because it can save erecting the dish. Quote: "The biggest problem is that Sky program the digibox with the regional programs that are at the address where you had the card sent to!!" A Freesat box lets you alter the channel list by simply putting in a different post code. She says she has a 12V Sky box. Yes, these are available but often at a stupid price, and running them from the spike-infested 12V boat supply is asking for trouble. Far better to have a small inverter (ideally a pure sine wave one), then you can use any receiver or recorder you like. Most boats these days have an inverter anyway. A major howler: "Some dishes come with the correct angle set from the vertical…. … the first time you set up will take a little patience, but once that angle is set you will never have to change it again." yet she lists her travels as being all over the UK. The elevation angle varies very significantly across the country. Lining the dish up as described by means of a Skybox is a bit of a pantomime! No mention of the small cheap meters that are available, some of which now give the satellite ident. Bill |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
On 20/03/2013 13:57, Bill Wright wrote:
Dickie mint wrote: Couldn't resist posting this: http://noproblem.org.uk/blog/sky-sat...th-no-problem/ Richard A "Bill" has posted on the Noproblem blog that the page contains errors. Sue has asked where the errors are. Could "Bill" also post them here? The blog page was written by a non technical person for other boaters who asked her to, and who was simply passing on what she'd found to work! Richard It was me. The main fault is that the writer was obviously unaware of Freesat, so she writes as if satellite = Sky and Sky = satellite. So you have to have a Sky receiver. You have to have a Sky card. You have to pay Sky at least £20. This is all completely wrong. People who don't want to subscribe to Sky are much better off getting a normal Freesat box. If they get a Freesat recorder they can watch their stash of programmes where there's no dish signal. A Sky box will only play back if it's getting permission from Sky all the time via the dish. This is important for boaters because it can save erecting the dish. Quote: "The biggest problem is that Sky program the digibox with the regional programs that are at the address where you had the card sent to!!" A Freesat box lets you alter the channel list by simply putting in a different post code. She says she has a 12V Sky box. Yes, these are available but often at a stupid price, and running them from the spike-infested 12V boat supply is asking for trouble. Far better to have a small inverter (ideally a pure sine wave one), then you can use any receiver or recorder you like. Most boats these days have an inverter anyway. A major howler: "Some dishes come with the correct angle set from the vertical…. … the first time you set up will take a little patience, but once that angle is set you will never have to change it again." yet she lists her travels as being all over the UK. The elevation angle varies very significantly across the country. Lining the dish up as described by means of a Skybox is a bit of a pantomime! No mention of the small cheap meters that are available, some of which now give the satellite ident. Bill Be gentle with her! Her blogs are very interesting and amusing. The problem is that the page was written pre Freesat, around 2003 I think, and she hasn't updated it. With a suggestion of how it should read, she probably will! Richard |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
Woody wrote:
Yes but.... Actually I should have made something much clearer: if I were God I wouldn't use the internet for broadcast; I'd use satellite for broadcast and use the Internet for on-demand services. I really should have said that I understand the argument for freeing up the RF terrestrial spectrum, which you can do by providing broadcast services over the Internet or over satellite. And although the former will work, the latter makes much more sense. Without broadcast material the Internet will have lots more bandwidth for doing the stuff it is good at (delivery of user-specific services). I'm sorry for the last sentence in my previous post - in retrospect it doesn't properly reflect my views. Point for pedants: apparently we should always capitalise "Internet" because there's only one and it is a proper noun. And, of course, "Interweb" isn't a proper term (I know Woody knows that). I first heard it when Jools Holland kept saying it on his programme. Why does he think it "clever" or "cool" to deliberately flaunt his ignorance? On this topic, I'm amazed at how many people conflate "the web" (or "the World Wide Web) with "the Internet". Indeed, many people I've explained it to insist I'm wrong, and that "the web" is just another name for "the Internet". I've even heard people say that Tim Berners-Lee invented the Internet! -- SteveT |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:54:35 -0500, "Steve Thackery"
wrote: Actually I should have made something much clearer: if I were God I wouldn't use the internet for broadcast; I'd use satellite for broadcast and use the Internet for on-demand services. If you were God you wouldn't need either. You'd just say "Let there be broadcast", and there would be broadcast, and you would see that it was good. And on the seventh day you'd rest, and watch some of the programmes, and realise it wasn't so good after all. Rod. |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
Dickie mint wrote:
Be gentle with her! Her blogs are very interesting and amusing. The problem is that the page was written pre Freesat, around 2003 I think, and she hasn't updated it. With a suggestion of how it should read, she probably will! Richard Tell her if she re-writes it I'll check it for her. Bill |
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 sold off the whole of UHF, we could go back using VHF for TV if we just forgot about the regional news. Freeview only needs 6 channels for single frequency networks and these 6 should be available on VHF Bands I and III. Only the regional TV variations need to be relegated to satellite, cable & internet. The VHF bands are much less attractive to mobile phone operators because of the much longer aerials required (particularly for Band I) but they are perfectly good for terrestrial TV, and a new VHF TV aerial would be cheaper than a dish, and much easier to align. We might return to the days of H aerials, X aerials and Band III Yagis, but with digital TV on VHF instead of 405 lines. |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
If you were God you wouldn't need either. You'd just say "Let there be broadcast", and there would be broadcast, and you would see that it was good. And on the seventh day you'd rest, and watch some of the programmes, and realise it wasn't so good after all. Hah! Nice one. -- SteveT |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
In message , Stephen
writes 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...fi-mobile-bb/s ummary/cfi-mobile-bb.pdf If they sold off the whole of UHF, we could go back using VHF for TV if we just forgot about the regional news. Freeview only needs 6 channels for single frequency networks and these 6 should be available on VHF Bands I and III. Only the regional TV variations need to be relegated to satellite, cable & internet. The VHF bands are much less attractive to mobile phone operators because of the much longer aerials required (particularly for Band I) but they are perfectly good for terrestrial TV, and a new VHF TV aerial would be cheaper than a dish, and much easier to align. We might return to the days of H aerials, X aerials and Band III Yagis, but with digital TV on VHF instead of 405 lines. VHF (especially Band 1) is not best suited to off-air multi-channel TV. For a start, Band 1 is very prone to long-range sporadic-E interference in the late spring and early summer. Even well before the advent of digital transmissions, many European countries had ceased TV on Band 1 because of such problems. Then there's the problem of designing aerials with sufficient bandwidth vs gain. OK, the Americans have such things, but they are generally used for the reception of relatively strong downtown transmissions. I'm not sure how good those used in Europe are (or used to be). I can't remember if (for example) Band 3 aerials, covering the whole of 175 to 230MHz, were very common. There are only eight or nine 8MHz VHF TV channels available (3 in Band 1 and 6 or 7 in Band 3) - and it would be extremely difficult comprehensively to provide the whole of UK with 6 digital MUXes in the same way as the two analogue channels were provided. At best, the full 6 MUXes could probably only be provided in well-separated centres of large populations. Elsewhere, the number of channels would have to be reduced. Although this is not dissimilar to what happens at present, I feel that the situation would be much more marked than we have at UHF. -- Ian |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
Stephen wrote:
The VHF bands are much less attractive to mobile phone operators because of the much longer aerials required (particularly for Band I) but they are perfectly good for terrestrial TV, and a new VHF TV aerial would be cheaper than a dish, and much easier to align. We might return to the days of H aerials, X aerials and Band III Yagis, but with digital TV on VHF instead of 405 lines. I doubt if the aerials would be that elaborate. With no ghosting to worry about and the ability of DTT to work with a low s/n ratio I should think the aerials would mostly be in the loft, and would be simple dual-band omni types. An SFN would probably be VP. Bill |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
Ian Jackson wrote:
Then there's the problem of designing aerials with sufficient bandwidth vs gain. OK, the Americans have such things, but they are generally used for the reception of relatively strong downtown transmissions. I'm not sure how good those used in Europe are (or used to be). I can't remember if (for example) Band 3 aerials, covering the whole of 175 to 230MHz, were very common. Log periodics. http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/aerialp...ngus/005.shtml Half a log is better than no log at all: http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/aerialp...ngus/007.shtml Bill |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:46:01 -0000, "Stephen"
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 sold off the whole of UHF, we could go back using VHF for TV if we just forgot about the regional news. Freeview only needs 6 channels for single frequency networks and these 6 should be available on VHF Bands I and III. Only the regional TV variations need to be relegated to satellite, cable & internet. The VHF bands are much less attractive to mobile phone operators because of the much longer aerials required (particularly for Band I) but they are perfectly good for terrestrial TV, and a new VHF TV aerial would be cheaper than a dish, and much easier to align. We might return to the days of H aerials, X aerials and Band III Yagis, but with digital TV on VHF instead of 405 lines. Hmm... "Yes Sir/Madam. I know you have an old VHF aerial on your chimney, but it's pointing in the wrong direction. Anyway, you need a High Definition Digital VHF aerial." -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
Terrestrial Switchoff - sorry to labour the point but...
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:49:37 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote: In message , Stephen writes 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...fi-mobile-bb/s ummary/cfi-mobile-bb.pdf If they sold off the whole of UHF, we could go back using VHF for TV if we just forgot about the regional news. Freeview only needs 6 channels for single frequency networks and these 6 should be available on VHF Bands I and III. Only the regional TV variations need to be relegated to satellite, cable & internet. The VHF bands are much less attractive to mobile phone operators because of the much longer aerials required (particularly for Band I) but they are perfectly good for terrestrial TV, and a new VHF TV aerial would be cheaper than a dish, and much easier to align. We might return to the days of H aerials, X aerials and Band III Yagis, but with digital TV on VHF instead of 405 lines. VHF (especially Band 1) is not best suited to off-air multi-channel TV. For a start, Band 1 is very prone to long-range sporadic-E interference in the late spring and early summer. Even well before the advent of digital transmissions, many European countries had ceased TV on Band 1 because of such problems. I don't think anyone would want to go back to TV in Band I for that very reason, however Band III would be suitable if the DAB channels could be recovered. Now *there's* an idea! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com