What will happen at analogue switch-off?

"Ad" wrote in message
...
Bert wrote:
Thinking about my own TVs at home and lack of STBs on all 5 of them
(eek!),
got me to wondering what will happen at the big analogue switch-off...

Other than the obvious, what will hapen - specifically to the DVB
broadcasts
in terms of power and capacity?
I heard that the signal power will be increased. I sthat true?
Also, will there eventually be new MUXes when the transmitters are not
busy
transmitting analogue signals too, making space for more channels and the
ability to improve bitrates on the existing ones?


Power will be increased, so we are told, but another Mux or even two have
not been really been promised.
so I expect we will still have the same crap we got now, because then they
will push more channels into the space and do not have to worry about
upseting people, since anyone who wants T.v will have to use digital.


also...
It strikes me that there must be millions of portable (and hand-held) TVs
out there which rely on loop aerials and telescopic aerials used in
locations where a rooftop aerial is unavailable or impossible to provide.
Will hand-held TVs become a thing of the past? or will increased digital
signal power mean that digital versions become practical?

this is where there have been no thought and all Crown Castle and the
government wants is money, fill there own back pockets and they do not
care one bit about the public.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 00:35:32
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com




The japenses have already demonstrated how advanced multichannel TV should
work in the home. You would have a single multichannel decoder with a
terrabyte hard disk recoerder. This is connect via it's own network to
passive display devices (they don't have tuners!). You can route whatever
channel/recording you want to whatever passive display you want.

Ad wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:




You could use Wi-Fi for distribution around the house and UWB for
close range stuff.



Wi-Fi uses high end frequencies,


Wi-Fi uses 2.4 GHz, and (IIRC) 5.5 GHz, whereas visible light has a
frequency of around 600,000 GHz. Do you still think Wi-Fi uses "high end
frequencies", or just *higher frequencies*?


over and above microwave.


According to this:

http://geography.uoregon.edu/shinker...rum-fig2-6.gif

microwave goes up to frequencies which have wavelengths of 1 mm, which
means that microwave frequencies go up to 300 GHz. So Ad, no, Wi-Fi does
not use frequencies "over and above microwave" frequencies.


We get enough problems with some people worried about mobile phones,
can you imagine what it will be like with Wi-Fi?



When you're transmitting a Wi-Fi signal around the house most people
don't press their ear right next to the transmitting antenna. Then
again, this would go some way to explain why you come out with some of
the crap that you do come out with.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

On 14 May 2005 09:30:25 GMT, mike ring
wrote:

Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.

That attitude won't get you a job at the Beeb

In reality it that attitude the BBC exactly wants, as they
spend several thousands a year attempting to employ managers
with this type of dismissive attitude.

J

John_ZIZinvalid wrote in
:

On 14 May 2005 09:30:25 GMT, mike ring
wrote:

Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.

That attitude won't get you a job at the Beeb

In reality it that attitude the BBC exactly wants, as they
spend several thousands a year attempting to employ managers
with this type of dismissive attitude.

If you look at News and Current Affairs output for a day, you will learn
more about wasting time speculating than I could tell you in a millenium

mike

"mike ring" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"John" wrote in
:


Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.

That attitude won't get you a job at the Beeb

mike

How wrong you can be. I work for the beeb already.
John

John Russell wrote:


My point is that current licencing sees the phone as a phone, supplied by
one type of company, and TV as TV, supplied by others. If phone type
technology works to supply video to small devices then TV companies should
be allowed to use it for broadcast TV.



No doubt, but I bet it will not be for free, the other problem is how
long will batteries last on these phones?

I had just had a thought. It is bad enough with people going around more
interested in their mobile phones than looking where they are going as
it is.
Can you immagine what it will be like if they can watch T.V on them?


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 18:50:08
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

John Russell wrote:





The japenses have already demonstrated how advanced multichannel TV should
work in the home. You would have a single multichannel decoder with a
terrabyte hard disk recoerder. This is connect via it's own network to
passive display devices (they don't have tuners!). You can route whatever
channel/recording you want to whatever passive display you want.


I am glad you said should work.

For a start we are not in Japan, and the second thing is, that if/when
it comes to this country, it will cost a fortune.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 18:51:51
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:


Wi-Fi uses 2.4 GHz, and (IIRC) 5.5 GHz, whereas visible light has a
frequency of around 600,000 GHz. Do you still think Wi-Fi uses "high end
frequencies", or just *higher frequencies*?


Ok, higher freqencies.



over and above microwave.



According to this:

http://geography.uoregon.edu/shinker...rum-fig2-6.gif

microwave goes up to frequencies which have wavelengths of 1 mm, which
means that microwave frequencies go up to 300 GHz. So Ad, no, Wi-Fi does
not use frequencies "over and above microwave" frequencies.


I meant the ones that are in the microwave ovens, you think what these
waves do to your food, now think what the higher frequencies can do to you.



We get enough problems with some people worried about mobile phones,
can you imagine what it will be like with Wi-Fi?



When you're transmitting a Wi-Fi signal around the house most people
don't press their ear right next to the transmitting antenna. Then
again, this would go some way to explain why you come out with some of
the crap that you do come out with.





I most houses you will never be that far away from the souce of
transmission. My router is downstairs, my computer is upstairs, which
means that I am more or less sitting on the router.

How big do you think most houses are these days?


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 12/05/2005
Tested on: 14/05/2005 18:55:45
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"John" wrote in news:3empfsF401jeU1
@individual.net:


Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.

That attitude won't get you a job at the Beeb

mike

How wrong you can be. I work for the beeb already.
John

Ah, then you're among the *other* half; I used to be one of them

mike

On 14 May 2005 16:38:36 GMT, mike ring
wrote:

Nobody really knows, so its a waste of time speculating.

That attitude won't get you a job at the Beeb

In reality it that attitude the BBC exactly wants, as they
spend several thousands a year attempting to employ managers
with this type of dismissive attitude.

If you look at News and Current Affairs output for a day, you will learn
more about wasting time speculating than I could tell you in a millenium

Well it looks like the BBC has already got him.

J