Whats the point of Freeview?

Worse picture quality than analogue TV ( lots of nasty mpeg artifacts
and motion blur)

Worse reception than analogue TV

Receivers use more power than analogue TV (climate change , who cares
eh?)

Most of the extra channels other than perhaps BBC4 and 1 or 2 others
are either utter rubbish or endless repeats.

So what exactly is its point?

B2003

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:30:45 -0700, Boltar wrote:
So what exactly is its point?

More stations can be crammed into digital television bandwidth
than the one per analog broadcast, so the resultant free
spectrum can be auctioned off by the government, and maybe
the wealthy top income group will be given a one off tax break.

"Boltar" wrote in message
...
Worse picture quality than analogue TV ( lots of nasty mpeg artifacts
and motion blur)

Worse reception than analogue TV

Receivers use more power than analogue TV (climate change , who cares
eh?)

Most of the extra channels other than perhaps BBC4 and 1 or 2 others
are either utter rubbish or endless repeats.

So what exactly is its point?

B2003

To earn people money through codec, decrypter, and other marketing sales.
The picture quality isnt worse, it's not better either..
Recording the media streams becomes much easier with 0% loss from the
broadcast signal..
It is possible (but they dont do it) to embed different language audi feeds
with each station..
Interactive menu's are much better than the old teletext..
Ghost/Echo is removed, other RF noise no longers spoils your picture..
FreeviewHD will roll out next year and the "quality" will be obviously
better..
More stations can be pushed out over the existing spectrum..

I got no idea why they want it..

Boltar wrote:

So what exactly is its point?

Widescreen switching/support?

J G Miller wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:30:45 -0700, Boltar wrote:
So what exactly is its point?

More stations can be crammed into digital television bandwidth
than the one per analog broadcast, so the resultant free
spectrum can be auctioned off by the government, and maybe
the wealthy top income group will be given a one off tax break.

I think the point was provision of multi-channel TV
without a satellite subscription.

Now that we have Freesat, the rest of the terrestrial
TV bandwidth can be sold off as well

It seemed a good idea at the time. The point is to sell hardware that will
be obsolete in about five years.

Seems a bit odd to me as sat tv seems to offer more for hardly more money.

I cannot see why they are bothering, they could sell the whole lot off and
make lots of money on the frequencies. Like the price hike they intend to
charge the RNLI.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Boltar" wrote in message
...
Worse picture quality than analogue TV ( lots of nasty mpeg artifacts
and motion blur)

Worse reception than analogue TV

Receivers use more power than analogue TV (climate change , who cares
eh?)

Most of the extra channels other than perhaps BBC4 and 1 or 2 others
are either utter rubbish or endless repeats.

So what exactly is its point?

B2003

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:54:56 +0100, Jim wrote:
I think the point was provision of multi-channel TV without a
satellite subscription.

I think that you are forgetting that the original concept and
implementation of digital terrestrial broadcasts in the UKofGB&NI except
for a few PSB stations, was that one did have to take out a subscription
for multi-channel TV -- it was called OnDigital.

Freeview only happened effectively "by accident" and it was never
intended that UKofGB&NI viewers should have a free terrestrial
multi-channel service except for the basic PSB stations.

On 8 Oct, 17:01, "mr deo"
wrote:
FreeviewHD will roll out next year and the "quality" will be obviously
better..

Yeah , probably as long as nothing moves in the picture. As soon as it
does watch those squares appear.

More stations can be pushed out over the existing spectrum..

They could have done that with analogue if we'd have put up with ****
picture quality.

B2003

On 8 Oct, 17:26, (Mark Ingle) wrote:
Boltar wrote:
So what exactly is its point?

Widescreen switching/support?

Ah , that would be the switch between a picture where you have black
borders all around it or one where it filles the screen and a bit more
so you have bits cut off the top and bottom? And of course when you do
enlarge a standard def 16:9 picture you're actually getting less
vertical lines used in the picture than standard 4:3.
Brilliant.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
And of course when you do
enlarge a standard def 16:9 picture you're actually getting less
vertical lines used in the picture than standard 4:3.

No, SD anamorphic 16:9 (16F16) has 576 visible vertical lines (625 including
vertical blanking), just as SD 4:3 does. DTT/Freeview transmits widescreen in
that format.

You're thinking of 16:9 letterbox zoomed, a totally different kettle of fish,
and something that there's no need to do on a properly set up DTT receiver and TV.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.