The end of terrestrial TV

On 15/01/2013 10:11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
.. snip...
At the stategic level it is vulnerable to 'one point failure'. Not a good
idea in a world worried by terrorism or cybercrime, I'd have thought.

And the one point of failure is not necessarily just a terrorism
thing. Very heavy rain or snow took out the Tel Centre dish some years
back; and can, no doubt, do similar to any uplink site.

DTTV has the added advantage of being able to broadcast in the event of
any other major catastrophe affecting the uplink site like longer term
mains failure. Not unlikely following the warnings about the UK's
electricity supply failing in the future.

And the transmitters currently also host FM & DAB radio services.

And does cable still use DTTV as it's source?

Richard

On 15/01/2013 10:11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Robin wrote:
Comments on the predictions expressed, anyone?

I was interested and persuaded. But I was left with one main question
(possibly even niggle). It is, in summary, would the end of terrestrial
TV necessarily be a bad thing?

Rather depends who you are, and what your circumstances may be.

The big advantage of DTTV is that you can do things like have a series of
devices chained/split from one antenna *and*/*or* have sets with individual
antennas. It may well be possible to use indoor or loft antennas. Easier to
DIY, or for us aged and crumbling types to install or change around. [1]
Plus no running costs beyond the electric for the TV and the license fee.

Whereas installing a satellite system for multiple TVs and recorders may be
more costly and complex. At such time as I do so, I guess I'll have to
decide what the best way will be to ensure a reliable weatherproof system
that lets me use an open-ended number of RXs. Not quite as cheap and easy
as a set-top antenna or a DIY in the loft.

That was my thought too. A few years ago when I first got a dish I was
surprised to find that satellite reception wasn't like terrestrial at
all. I had assumed, in my ignorance, that a LNB was somewhat similar to
one of those aerial amps for poor reception areas. I had no idea that
you could only receive one channel per LNB (I know that you can receive
others on the same transponder). So it seems to me that many people
with daisy-chained terrestrial receivers, and in particular PVRs, are in
for a nasty surprise when that TV aerial and piece of coax has to be
replaced by a complicated system of dish with several LNBs, several
downleads, and/or switch boxes, and new coax or maybe fibreoptic cable.
And, unless your TV has a sat receiver built in, you will have to use
a STB with the TV. It seems to me that terrestrial reception is far
simpler, and a lot cheaper, to realise than sat reception.

Someone is going to make a lot of money if terrestrial TV dies and
satellite TV replaces it.

It also assume you can fit a dish in a place illuminated by the satellite.

Is that the sound of chainsaws I hear? ;-)

So it was not clear to me just how and where the Great British Public
(GBP) lose overall when you add up all the costs and benefits.

Oh, I think that the Sky's the limit, if you see what I mean. I wonder
(well, not really...) if there is pressure from that direction to kill
off terrestrial TV.

Can't say the experience encouraged me to think about fitting a sat dish
and distribution system. So like many, if I decide it is needed I'll end up
having to pay a monkey... erm, flunkey. :-)

I suppose that could be one advantage of a dish. Providing there is
line-of-sight, why not consider putting one on the ground, rather than
risk life and limb at a dizzying height? Well, in a private garden, that
is (although I have seen them in front gardens on the ground). Come to
think of it, there is one further advantage in ground mounting in that
when you are completely frustrated by the total crap on TV (exacerbated
by the then umpteen thousand sat channels of unending dross), instead of
throwing the proverbial brick at the TV, you could just go outside and
aim a hefty size 12 at the LNB and dish.

--

Jeff

In article ,
wrote:


Whereas installing a satellite system for multiple TVs and recorders
may be

more costly and complex. At such time as I do so, I guess I'll have to

decide what the best way will be to ensure a reliable weatherproof
system

that lets me use an open-ended number of RXs. Not quite as cheap and
easy

as a set-top antenna or a DIY in the loft.
It isn't too bad actually. Once you accept that it's different! Instead
of an aerial you haqve a dish, and instead of a distribution amp you
have a multiswitch.

Which is fine *once* you've been though the cost and bother. (If you can
afford it.) *And* providing you then don't want to make a change beyond the
scope of what you installed.


There's the constraint that every receiver needs its
own (two?) feeds, but that's about it really.

In my case I have a TV + recorder in one room, a recorder + possible
computer RX in another, and a possible computer RX in another. And may end
up wanting another TV in one of those places. All to be tuneable
independently.

Given the state of our house's brickwork, etc, I am also paranoid about
someone whose work I don't trust coming to drill holes in the wall and
'seal' them with mastic. Particularly having just made many trips up a
ladder to the chimney.


I have loads of customers
who use Freesat exclusively and they actually aren't really aware that
they get their TV from satellite!

I'm sure that is right *once* all is installed and working nicely.


It also assume you can fit a dish in a place illuminated by the
satellite.
Now that can be the real problem.

At the stategic level it is vulnerable to 'one point failure'. Not a
good

idea in a world worried by terrorism or cybercrime, I'd have thought.
The 'satellite' is in fact a cluster of satellites. Whethere they could
all be knocked out at once I don't know.

I can't say I'd regard that as making it impossibly difficult. Depends on
the resources and skills of those determined to jam them. I'm not thinking
of multiple kinetic kills at GEO. Just blinding them or spoofing with a
command that renders them U/S.



Can't say the experience encouraged me to think about fitting a sat
dish

and distribution system. So like many, if I decide it is needed I'll
end up

having to pay a monkey... erm, flunkey. :-)
A lot of people have to have the aerial on the top of the roof, so for
them a dish is an easier DIY option. Dishes can be fitted low down, of
course.

I suspect what I'd prefer is a dish in the garden on a pole. So being more
accessible by myself. In my ideal world, with an optical or RF link that
didn't require holes in the house. But the problem here is what most people
would accept and be able to afford. As I've said, I'm more worried about
the shoddy and deceitful way millions of people are being treated than my
personal possible inconvenience.

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

In article , Jeff Layman
wrote:
On 15/01/2013 10:11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Robin
wrote:

Whereas installing a satellite system for multiple TVs and recorders
may be more costly and complex. At such time as I do so, I guess I'll
have to decide what the best way will be to ensure a reliable
weatherproof system that lets me use an open-ended number of RXs. Not
quite as cheap and easy as a set-top antenna or a DIY in the loft.

That was my thought too. A few years ago when I first got a dish I was
surprised to find that satellite reception wasn't like terrestrial at
all. I had assumed, in my ignorance, that a LNB was somewhat similar to
one of those aerial amps for poor reception areas. I had no idea that
you could only receive one channel per LNB (I know that you can receive
others on the same transponder).

Personally, I'm attracted by the kind of kit discussed in the current What
Sat. The system that uses optical fibre and fat N-plugged cable to stack
all the signals. If/when I have to install sat here I'd problem go for that
approach as it means I can simply feed every room ready for when needed.
But the point is that this presumably isn't a cheap install to set up and
have four or five RXs working.


Someone is going to make a lot of money if terrestrial TV dies and
satellite TV replaces it.

What fascinates me is that the government will trumpet how much they will
get as payment 'saving us taxes'. Neatly forgetting the money came from us
who become the no-alternative customers of the companies who weren't given
any say in the matter. In effect, tax taken indirectly with a profit levie
creamed off the top on the way!

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

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:16:24 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/32...trial%20tv.jpg

Thanks to Mark Carver, whose thoughts as expressed in this group inspired this article.

Comments on the predictions expressed, anyone?

Actually Bill I started this particular hare running. A year ago I
said in this group we would know the TSO (Terrestrial Switch Off) date
within ten years. There was some scepticism at the time, but I still
hold to that timescale.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:20:05 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:28:10 AM UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Further, if Bill wrote it he must have the text of it, so maybe he is being

particularly lazy and non inclusive today?
Why don't you just print it and ask someone to read it out instead of moaning?

Bill
What a **** you are, Bill.

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:52:37 PM UTC, A&R Man wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:20:05 -0800 (PST),

wrote:



On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:28:10 AM UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:

Further, if Bill wrote it he must have the text of it, so maybe he is being



particularly lazy and non inclusive today?

Why don't you just print it and ask someone to read it out instead of moaning?



Bill

What a **** you are, Bill.

Now now, be fair. I have every sympathy with Brian but other things he's said in the group prove that he's extremely resourceful, and can accomplish a remarkable range of tasks. I'm certain he could print a page and OCR it with a handheld thing, or simply import the jpg into an OCR program in his computer, or as I said wait until someone pops in and get them to read it.

I'm sorry to say this, but the fact is that every single time a bit of non-editable text appears Brian complains about it. The fact is, non-editable text is always going to appear so Brian would be better off finding a way to read it. The constant moaning about it gets dangerously close to an abuse of his position as a disabled person in my opinion. Adaptations for disability can only go so far. We can make sure new buildings have disabled lavatories and easy access but we can't expect the whole world to be modified to suit every single disability.

Pandering to the disabled when their they are just being lazy and their requests are unreasonable doesn't do them any favours; quite the opposite in fact, in the long run. To help someone rise above their disability it's best to listen to a request and then consider if the person could possibly accomplish the task themselves. I speak as someone whose main job is to look after two disabled people.

Bill

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:28:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Pandering to the disabled when their they are just being lazy and their requests are unreasonable doesn't do them any favours; quite the opposite in fact, in the long run. To help someone rise above their disability it's best to listen to a request and then consider if the person could possibly accomplish the task themselves. I speak as someone whose main job is to look after two disabled people.

I agree completely about disabled sometimes being lazy as I'm a bit
that way myself. Just now I got one of my helpers to switch my foot
heater off. She had to stop preparing tea, wash her hands, walk to my
room and bend down to the floor switch. She asked me who had switched
it on and I had to admit I had done it myself!

Steve

--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

lid wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:16:24 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/32...trial%20tv.jpg

Thanks to Mark Carver, whose thoughts as expressed in this group inspired this article.

Comments on the predictions expressed, anyone?

Actually Bill I started this particular hare running. A year ago I
said in this group we would know the TSO (Terrestrial Switch Off) date
within ten years. There was some scepticism at the time, but I still
hold to that timescale.

It might have been in uk.tech.broadcast rather than here, but I would
agree, Mr Nemo was probably the first advocate of the theory.

Some random points for discussion, based on comments made.

Don't assume 'TV' will be in anything like the form it's in now, in 10
to 15 years time. What is trendily called 'linear viewing' will be well
on its way out, and there'll be an awful lot of 'content' downloaded, or
streamed, via you know what.

Yes, some folk will point out they have a 1 Mb/s internet connection,
can't see 28E, claim they'll be locked up in the Tower of London if they
so much as think about sticking a dish on their listed building, etc.

That maybe the case, so they may well have to do without TV then ?

The notion that the whole nation will turn to broadcasters for
information, should there be some crisis is also becoming out of date.
The young do not instinctively turn to TV or radio for info on
catastrophes, they pick up their smart phones, and use social media.

I also suspect come 2023, people in remote areas won't have the postman
visit, and you'll certainly pay a different postage charge based upon
the sending and delivery addresses.

I'm not saying everything above will be A Good Thing, but we all need to
come to terms that things are changing, and will change at an even
faster rate from now on.

In article , Mark Carver
wrote:
lid wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:16:24 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


Don't assume 'TV' will be in anything like the form it's in now, in 10
to 15 years time. What is trendily called 'linear viewing' will be well
on its way out, and there'll be an awful lot of 'content' downloaded, or
streamed, via you know what.

I would avoid conflating viewing habit of content with the (engineering)
method used for supply. I have my doubts that 'linear viewing' will
actually vanish. It'll just become one of the options many will have/use as
suits them. That seems to me an issue quite distinct from th possible
cessation of DTTV as one engineering method for supply.


Yes, some folk will point out they have a 1 Mb/s internet connection,
can't see 28E, claim they'll be locked up in the Tower of London if they
so much as think about sticking a dish on their listed building, etc.

That maybe the case, so they may well have to do without TV then ?

Yes, some will, just as some do now. But I'm not clear that justifies the
current 'shutdown by stealth' strategy where people are being left in the
dark about what is being enacted and how it may cut their choices.


The notion that the whole nation will turn to broadcasters for
information, should there be some crisis is also becoming out of date.
The young do not instinctively turn to TV or radio for info on
catastrophes, they pick up their smart phones, and use social media.

Actually, I had the impression that people *do* still 'switch on the TV or
radio' when serious and dramatic national events occur. My memory is
unreliable, but I thought this was reported in places like the R4 'Media
Show' in recent years.

But again, they may in future watch that 'live TV in a linear fashion' by
turning on their 4G tablet. So I suspect this is another example of needing
to distingush mode of viewing from the engineering employed.

I also suspect come 2023, people in remote areas won't have the postman
visit, and you'll certainly pay a different postage charge based upon
the sending and delivery addresses.

I'm not saying everything above will be A Good Thing, but we all need to
come to terms that things are changing, and will change at an even
faster rate from now on.

I agree we need to come to terms with things. But I also think we need to
consider how we can get those who 'run the country' sic to actually
*inform* use of their plans, and allow us the quaint process of deciding by
vote, etc, what we'll accept and what we will reject. So 'coming to terms'
can sometimes be a process of making plain to the elected representitives
that their job and expenses depend on making arrangements we prefer. Not
regard whatever is thrown at us as if an act of Ghod.

That said, I know full well that it is the slave who makes slavery
possible.

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