The digital rip-off: your help needed

Terry Casey wrote:

I wasn't suggesting a vested interest in my other post. I was just
putting forward a suggestion in response to another comment.

I think it would be a good idea for the site, though - an expression
both of technical competence and neutrality - you don't need names but
it would reinforce the authority of the site and its content.

Yes, fair comment, and a good idea Terry.

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

http://www.paras.org.uk/

"neverwas" wrote in message
om...
snip

--
Robin

I have copied your suggestions onto the document which will be the basis for
improvements and alterations.

Thank you.

Bill

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
neverwas wrote:
What about an 'About Us' page including a general description of each of
you which doesn't appear as blatant advertising?

Something on the lines of "Aerial installer with many years experience who
runs his own installation business in the North of England and has
contributed many articles on the subject to technical and consumer
journals over the years."

I'll pass this on, but since my name is given I don't want there to be any
suggestion that I am an aerial imstaller or nasty people will say it's all
just an advert.

Bill

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
This is a subject which has been on my mind for a while, so it is
appropriate that it should crop up now.

I want to challenge some very misleading advice displayed in a local
branch of a major chain.

However, there is some definitive information I need and, search as I
might, cannot track down, although I'm sure it has been referred to on
here many times - I really must learn to bookmark the useful stuff!

What I'm looking for is a site that shows current channel allocations,
both analogue and digital, AND the revised allocations after ASO.

I know it exists - can someone give me a link to it, please?

I will post details of the miscreant with a link to a picture of the
misleading information at a later date.

Terry

Sounds like one for Mark Carver.

Bill

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Terry Casey wrote:
As for the question of whether the three of us have any vested interests
in the site, well no. I'm sure Bill will speak for himself.

Yes, I could have vested interests in selling unnecessary aerials to
vulnerable people. But instead of doing that sort of thing I chose to put a
hell of a lot of work into PARAS. I know that when word spreads I will be
vilified in some quarters of the aerial industry. I'm braced for an
onslaught of abuse. When it comes I'll publish it on PARAS.

Bill

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:40:38 -0800, wrote:
But the re-born mux B will be HD only. Not much use to those with SD
TVs.
Why not? They can still watch the programs on the HD stations which in
the case of BBC HD are not always simulcast with the SD station.

Furthermore even on an SD television, a downconverted HD picture should
still look better.

If you anticipate the wide use of DVB-T2 MPEG-4 for SD, I think you're
mistaken.

Why not? DVB-t2/MPEG-4 means a higher level of compression with more
bandwidth available to cram in more stations?

You think all the stations on one mux want to vanish of 8 million+ TVs
just so another few stations can launch to a few hundred thousand TVs?

In the case of the B$kyB dominated multiplex, B$kyB are perfectly happy
to pull the plug on their three FTA stations so that they can show a
subscriber service.

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
198kHz wrote:

Yer 'tiz -

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/


Thanks for that, Martin.

I've also found another one which, I think, is what I was looking for
in the first place:

http://www.ukfree.tv/starthere.php

It's more up to date than the Ofcom site - not only does it include
the new move from Ch61 to Ch51 for the Waltham Tx (due to the recent
proposal to modify the frequencies involved in the Digital Dividend
Review) but, as of 15:31 this afternoon, it contains news of, and a
link to, the PARAS site!

Thanks Terry - wasn't aware of that one.

Martin

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:01:49 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

etc

I have just had a salutary experience.
I read the site carefully, and found it a model of clarity - someone
had spent a lot of time writing it. Just the job, I thought.

Then I showed the site to a friend who has no experience of the
subject but is a highly intelligent individual - a partner in a City
law firm. He's very IT literate and author of technical legal papers,
and is skilled at understanding a brief in the minimum of time.
After reading it through carefully he turned to me and frowned. I
asked if he understood it. "Well", he said, "I *think* so, but
couldn't it be just a bit less complicated?

If that is what my friend thought, how well will the average punter
comprehend what it means?

This is not in any way to criticise the site which is a great, almost
noble, undertaking. But it does to me indicate the difficulty of the
task.

On 12 Feb, 17:59, J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:40:38 -0800, wrote:

* But the re-born mux B will be HD only. Not much use to those with SD
* TVs.
Why not? *They can still watch the programs on the HD stations which in
the case of BBC HD are not always simulcast with the SD station.

So you think people will want to buy a £150 box instead of a £20 to
receive an extra simulcast / nearly simulcast channel? Because,
obviously, with just a £20 box, they don't get enough of those
already!?

Surely an £80 PVR would be a far better choice?


Furthermore even on an SD television, a downconverted HD picture should
still look better.

It would if the downconversion was good. There's some junk out there
though.

You're assuming it has analogue outputs enabled for all programming.
You obviously haven't heard what's happened on Freesat.


* If you anticipate the wide use of DVB-T2 MPEG-4 for SD, I think you're
* mistaken.

Why not? *DVB-t2/MPEG-4 means a higher level of compression with more
bandwidth available to cram in more stations?

* You think all the stations on one mux want to vanish of 8 million+ TVs
* just so another few stations can launch to a few hundred thousand TVs?

In the case of the B$kyB dominated multiplex, B$kyB are perfectly happy
to pull the plug on their three FTA stations so that they can show a
subscriber service.

True - which would make your (as yet hypothetical) FTA DVB-T2 MPEG-4
box "obsolete" because it doesn't have the required CAM or slot.

Your idea that something is obsolete, because in a years time
something else will come along which costs 5x as much, does something
different, and needs to be connected to something different, is a
strange one. People have greater obsolescence built into their PCs,
and they spend far more than £20 on them.

A STB bought now will receive exactly the same channels in a years
time that it can now.

Still, you buy what you like. You have a _great_ time avoiding
obsolescence.

Cheers,
David.

On 12 Feb, 18:23, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:01:49 -0000, "Bill Wright"

wrote:

etc

I have just had a salutary experience.
I read the site carefully, and found it a model of clarity - someone
had spent a lot of time writing it. Just the job, I thought.

Then I showed the site to a friend who has no experience of the
subject but is a highly intelligent individual - a partner in a City
law firm. He's very IT literate and author of technical legal papers,
and is skilled at understanding a brief in the minimum of time.
After reading it through carefully he turned to me and frowned. I
asked if he understood it. "Well", he said, "I *think* so, but
couldn't it be just a bit less complicated?

If that is what my friend thought, how well will the average punter
comprehend what it means?

This is not in any way to criticise the site which is a great, almost
noble, undertaking. But it does to me indicate the difficulty of the
task. *

Well, I think the first page should say...

"TV is going digital.

One day some rip-off merchant might tell you (or some vulnerable
friend / family member) that you MUST buy a new TV aerial or you'll
lose all TV reception when digital switch over happens.

IT'S NOT TRUE!*

Similar lies include 'You'll have to get Sky' / 'You'll have to get
cable' / 'You'll need a new TV set' or you'll lose all TV channels.

IT'S NOT TRUE!*

Don't listen to the sharks trying to grab your money. Read this site,
and understand what you really need.*

* - if your aerial is broken, or if you're in one of the _very_ _few_
areas listed on page X, you might need a new aerial - but the vast
majority of people don't and won't"

Cheers,
David.