Digital switchover

In message , John
Rumm wrote


Well not really... it is a solution that could be fitted once and then
forgotten about, at a stroke making all the TVs and VCRs in the house
spring back into life with no need to learn new remotes or concepts.

They may have to learn new concepts. When everyone has a 8 day EPG
transmitted on their digital TV is there going to be a market for the TV
listing magazines? Access to a EPG from the proposed box may also be
required - needing another remote.


--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On 15/07/2007 08:13, Alan wrote:

The proposed box wouldn't be simple or cheap

that is what everyone is trying to tell the O/P

but my PVR can record or
record/view two channels from the same MUX in parallel

same here, there's no technical reason why you couldn't design a box
that could extract 5 or 10 channels from a single mux, needs wither more
CPU umph, or more MPEG chipsets to do it in hardware, this box will some
double up as a foot-warmer.

so to extract the
5 existing analogue channels in parallel would only take 3 tuners/decoders.

It could even do that without having a "special" BBC1/2/ITV1/Four/Five
mux as BBC1/2 could be handled by tuner1, ITV1/Four by tuner and Five by
tuner3.

But that still doesn't make me think the box would be successful.

Lurch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:08:13 +0100, Stevo
mused:

Lurch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:18:10 +0100, "Matti Lamprhey"
mused:

"Alan" wrote...
Matti Lamprhey wrote

I think you've missed the point. The required change would be for the
'old' analogue channels to share a single mux.
I understand this.

The device would demux
them into their old frequency positions.
The old (current) frequency positions a
From Crystal Palace BBC 1 analogue is on Ch26
From Bluebell Hill BBC 1 analogue is on Ch40
From Dover BBC 1 analogue is on Ch50
From Guilford BBC 1 analogue is on Ch40
From Reigate BBC 1 analogue is on Ch57
etc.

On which channel would your box output BBC1?
I did say in another post that the box would have to be geographically
configurable to suit the different analogue channel positions. It
seemed to me possible that it could do it automatically if installed
before analogue switchoff.

I asume you mean it would need an analyser built in to scan and decode
all existing analogue transmissions and automatically retune its five
outputs to suit, adding more complexity and cost to the unit.
If would cost v.little to store the channels keyed on digital
transmitters ID

Ah, never thought of that.

Well that wasn't what the OP was suggesting and still doesn't make the
scheme viable, just one obstacle removed (in some circumstances)

In article , Lurch
writes
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:33:44 +0100, "Matti Lamprhey"
mused:

"Alan" wrote...
Matti Lamprhey wrote

You may be making the erroneous assumption that the analogue
channels
are always transmitted on the same frequency throughout the country.

I'm aware that this is not currently planned, but that could be easily
fixed.

Surely the proposal is for a box that uses the existing channels
allocations so the TV and the VCR don't have to be changed or
re-tuned? If this simple box first requires a change to the channels
on which the analogue is broadcast why not make it very simple and buy
an existing Freeview box.

I think you've missed the point. The required change would be for the
'old' analogue channels to share a single mux.

Who would be paying the licensing for this extra mux, assuming it has
somewwhere to fit? The users of it wouldn't want to particularly as
there will only be a few of them so it would cost a fortune.

I think he is proposing reallocating the occupants of the current MUXs
so that the five (six) analogue channels share one MUX.

The device would demux
them into their old frequency positions. Therefore any TV and VCR using
the device would require no retuning and the device itself would need
only one tuner.

So you'd need a box for every area to get the correct channel layout.
More expense.

No, just one box, but you would have to tell it which analogue
transmitter to emulate, perhaps it could deduce this from the MUXs that
it is receiving, or reduce the options.

It still seems a complex, and expensive solution. Given that it will
contain the functionality of five STBs with the ability to automatically
tune the modulators for an area I can see it being expensive. It would
probably be much more than five times the cost of a cheap STB because
the market is much smaller than for a single channel STB.
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:16:26 +0100, Stevo
mused:

Lurch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:08:13 +0100, Stevo
mused:

Lurch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:18:10 +0100, "Matti Lamprhey"
mused:

"Alan" wrote...
Matti Lamprhey wrote

I think you've missed the point. The required change would be for the
'old' analogue channels to share a single mux.
I understand this.

The device would demux
them into their old frequency positions.
The old (current) frequency positions a
From Crystal Palace BBC 1 analogue is on Ch26
From Bluebell Hill BBC 1 analogue is on Ch40
From Dover BBC 1 analogue is on Ch50
From Guilford BBC 1 analogue is on Ch40
From Reigate BBC 1 analogue is on Ch57
etc.

On which channel would your box output BBC1?
I did say in another post that the box would have to be geographically
configurable to suit the different analogue channel positions. It
seemed to me possible that it could do it automatically if installed
before analogue switchoff.

I asume you mean it would need an analyser built in to scan and decode
all existing analogue transmissions and automatically retune its five
outputs to suit, adding more complexity and cost to the unit.
If would cost v.little to store the channels keyed on digital
transmitters ID

Ah, never thought of that.

Well that wasn't what the OP was suggesting and still doesn't make the
scheme viable, just one obstacle removed (in some circumstances)

Well, it could be the difference between the box costing a 5 figure
and 4 figure sum.
--
Regards,
Stuart.

In article , Bill Wright
writes

"Matti Lamprhey" wrote in message
...
Here's an idea to assist the old folk with analogue switch-off. It would
require the existing analog channels to be muxed up together. Then you
could produce a very simple device with a single digital tuner which could
be plugged inline into the aerial socket of a TV or VCR and which would
demux those channels into their original pre-switchoff frequencies.

One problem would be that the device would be receiving on the same
frequency as one of its output frequencies.

There should be no difficulty in introducing sufficient isolation
between input and output, you could have a pass-through only mode before
analogue switch off, and then analogue emulation afterwards (it could
detect the switch-off and switch automatically).

There are lots of other snags
that make the idea impractical.

Nothing that a lot of money won't resolve, I just doubt that the price
the market will pay will cover the development cost.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:49:45 +0100, Prometheus
mused:

It still seems a complex, and expensive solution. Given that it will
contain the functionality of five STBs with the ability to automatically
tune the modulators for an area I can see it being expensive. It would
probably be much more than five times the cost of a cheap STB because
the market is much smaller than for a single channel STB.

That's what I was trying to say, but not quite getting it out!
--
Regards,
Stuart.

Lurch wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:49:45 +0100, Prometheus
mused:

It still seems a complex, and expensive solution. Given that it will
contain the functionality of five STBs with the ability to automatically
tune the modulators for an area I can see it being expensive. It would
probably be much more than five times the cost of a cheap STB because
the market is much smaller than for a single channel STB.

That's what I was trying to say, but not quite getting it out!

I think we get that. The complexity (and hence price) is not trivial in
any sense, although is nothing compared to that present is say a mobile
phone. However there are cases where this will not matter.

All I was saying is that the pain might be worth the price in some
cases. Say the box could be sold for £250 quid, then I can see it would
be quite attractive for people with MATV systems to drop one of those
into the head end if if means keeping all the digital refusniks at a 200
bed granny farm happy. Same would go for a big family home with half a
dozen TVs and as many VCR still floating about since it will save a
dozen new STBs, wall warts, and remotes.

I am also sure there are many who would be happy to fork out for said
box after the 25th call in a week from an aged parent who can't work out
which buttons to push for corrie.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Alan wrote:
In message , John
Rumm wrote


Well not really... it is a solution that could be fitted once and then
forgotten about, at a stroke making all the TVs and VCRs in the house
spring back into life with no need to learn new remotes or concepts.

They may have to learn new concepts. When everyone has a 8 day EPG

Some people are not able to. I can think of at least one person I know
who has short term memory problems following a stroke. Leaning new stuff
like that is immensely difficult.

transmitted on their digital TV is there going to be a market for the TV
listing magazines?

Yes. In exactly the same way email never killed the post, or eBooks have
not replaced the paper versions. Listings mags are a "high touch" rather
than high tech, and people (rather than technology geeks) like that.

Access to a EPG from the proposed box may also be
required - needing another remote.

Why? if you have your radio times and can program the VCR like before...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , John
Rumm writes
Lurch wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:49:45 +0100, Prometheus
mused:

It still seems a complex, and expensive solution. Given that it will
contain the functionality of five STBs with the ability to
automatically tune the modulators for an area I can see it being
expensive. It would probably be much more than five times the cost
of a cheap STB because the market is much smaller than for a single
channel STB.
That's what I was trying to say, but not quite getting it out!

I think we get that. The complexity (and hence price) is not trivial in
any sense, although is nothing compared to that present is say a mobile
phone. However there are cases where this will not matter.

All I was saying is that the pain might be worth the price in some
cases. Say the box could be sold for £250 quid, then I can see it would
be quite attractive for people with MATV systems to drop one of those
into the head end if if means keeping all the digital refusniks at a
200 bed granny farm happy. Same would go for a big family home with
half a dozen TVs and as many VCR still floating about since it will
save a dozen new STBs, wall warts, and remotes.

I am also sure there are many who would be happy to fork out for said
box after the 25th call in a week from an aged parent who can't work
out which buttons to push for corrie.

I think that the development cost, and a production run would make the
per box cost for the limited UK only market far more than 250 GBP. It
would be cheaper for a specialist to put five cheap STBs in to a rack
with a combiner and configure it for the "granny farm" that requires it.
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams