The switchoff begins ...

While not disagreeing with some of what you say you miss my point I think.
ie The government will do what it wants and even go back on what its already
said and justify it one way or another. My whole point about asking
MPs/prospective MPs is that it would essentially be a waste of time, sorry
hence my saying it would be entetaining only. Its a generalisation obviously
but the vast majority of MPs no matter what political hue will probably be
totally at sea.

By the time the changeover comes it could quite easily be the case that the
ITV channels and channel 4 & 5 are FTA on satellite. I'm not saying it will
happen for definite within the current proposed time scale but if the a
government sets its mind to something it will get it unless the opposition
parties believe its worth fighting for and frankly I don't think they do.

Surely no one really believes everything that our politicians say. They have
a habit of changing their minds and then justifying it. And a new government
could quite happily ignore promises made by a previous government regardless
of what quangos have already said.


"Ad" wrote in message
...
John Patrick wrote:


The government can go back on what it likes really even when its set a
law
on the statute book it can still be overturned by paliament. As for
waiting
till 95% have access to a digital signal that will present no problem
for
the spin docs. By one definition it probably could already be claimed
that
at least 95% have access should they wish to purchase a receiver. Maybe
not
access to DTT but Certainly SKY. Thats not the point though the point is
the

But that is wrong,k sky is a subscription system, The ogvernment also
said that equipement will be affordable, Sky is not affordable to a lot
of people, even if you have this so called freesat, it is still £150 and
sky can still cancle that at any time.
Getting a normal Dsat box is no good because you can not get ITV1, ch4
or ch 5 on them.




government will basically do what it wants when it wants. With the
forthcoming election it might be quite entertaining, don't think it will
do
anything else other than entertain, to question your MP/prospective MP
about
some of the technicalities of digital TV policy.

Our MP is a Lib Dem and they do not know much, in fact our MP is a waste
of space.


As for any digital refuseniks they will simply be put under house arrest
without access to email or telephones - Just kidding I hope. In the end
I
suspect lots of boxes will be given away to the elderly and the low
incomed.


Well if they are going to give away boxes, then I think they should give
them away to everyone.
At the end of the day, I pay my license fee, the elderly do not, will
not after 75 anyway. I also pay tax, so I should get a free box.


I still do not think the changeover will happen when they say, unless
the government decideds to go for it anyway, because once the election
is over, nothing can be done about it.

Not many I suspect. People are generally lethargic and would not realise
exactly what was going on until it was too late.



"JB" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...



All residents were given a STB for each TV, and a free Pace Twin to
replace each VCR.


For each VCR? Fantastic. I wonder how many people nipped out to Argos
for
3 extra VCRs just before the PVRs came around.

[email protected] wrote:



I expect you get bad digital then. Those of us with very good digital
can tell the difference and digital is far superior. Even my wife
notices the difference and she's a woman.

Or you are all blind.
Come on digital is awful, the digital artifacts stand out a mile.
If anything moves faster than 10MPH, everything goes into one.
You get blocks on faces, when they move,.
You never gets that on analouge, well not with the older programs anyway.

I have yet to have anyone comment positively on my digital reception
and the picture quality when they see it on my 42" plasma. Digital is
superior in concept, if for no other reason than it supports true

In concept yes, but sadly not here. a plasma screen will show digital
better than it would show analouge, that is because the resolution of
plasma is so crap

anamorphic widescreen. If your reception of the service does not match

Over 70% of programms that are shown on T.V ar not widescreen.


mine then that's more a reflection on your equipment/location than it
is on the system itself.


It is the system, not my equipment.


But they know the quality. I give you an example, My sister was given a
DAB radio for Christmas, she notice the difference in the quality of the
stations and if she can notice, then I should think anyone can.


My brother has had a DAB radio for a few years and swears by it. He
won't hear a bad word about it, despite what I try and tell him about
bandwidth.


Then you lot must have bad hearing as well as bad eyesight.

DAB is awful, it is far worse than FM. The bit rates are far too low. I
would not even have mp3's with bit rates that low.

Maybe your mother have just got a small radio stuck in the kitchen, in
which case, she would not notice the quality though the naf speakers
that are normally in these things.

John Porcella wrote:


There is little motivation at the moment for the HA to do anything...yet.
They will have to when the existing system becomes totally obsolete.

No they will not have to, there is no law to say they will have to.

Most of us knows that, but i doubt things will get any better even when
analogue is switched off. Bandwidth will stay the same, the only thing
that will happen is higher power.


Huh? More bandwidth will be available due to a greater number of
multiplexes (assuming that some are reserved for DTT).


It have not been said as far as I know that we will get any more muxes
once analouge is switched off. Even if we do, that will not help the
quality.


2008, then it was 2010, now 2012. I thin it will be pushed back again.


I am not sure about your earlier dates, but I can see slippage.

So I expect it will be put back again.




I do not want to see analogue go, digital is not a patch on analogue and
it never will be.


The reverse could be considered true. Analogue could not cope with forty or
more stations.


Who the hell wants forty or so stations? We have not even got the
content to fill 5 stations, never mind forty.


I have said it before and I will say it again. Just because it got
digital in its name, it do not mean it is any good.


True.

I know it is true, that is whay I said it.



No? Ultimately it does cost you more either in licence fees or in the cost
of goods and services elsewhere in the economy.


Do you think it will make any difference? Do you really think our
license feee will go down or that price of products will go down,
when/if analouge is switched off?


Digital can only realistically be improved seriously once analogue is
switched off.


That is not true. Take some of the channels of on digital and up the bit
rates.
Get rid of the shopping channels, get rid of Top up T.v, what about one
of the news channel, 3 is not needed.

That will free up enough bandwidth to improve the quality.



Perhaps they have good manners! Maybe when you leave, the set is switched
back on.

The T.v is still on, but the set top box is switched off.


Looking at the aerials up this street alone, most of the

Having no TV reception will motivate many.


Maybe, but then again, why should people have to pay out just so the
government can get some more money?


We was told that 95% of people would have to

have access to digital T.V, before the analogue was switched off, the
government can not go back on that.


Why not? Digital TV coverage is probably close to 100% in actual fact!


You are dreaming, do not include Dsat, because unless you have got a
subscription with Sky or got their freesat, you can not get ITV1, ch4 or
Ch5. People should not have to rely on sky to get T.V, since Sky could
block the cards to anyone who do nto subscribe.

John Porcella wrote:



A friend has a Sky Plus box and his Sky text is rapid. I suspect that you
hardware is simply out of date.



All sky hardware is out of date, Sky boxes have not change internaly
since Sky digital started and if you think I am going to pay another £10
a month to get Sky+ just to get faster text, then you are mad.
anyway, Sky+ have too many problems.

JB wrote:



It's truly abysmal on my Sky+ box. Not mentioning it's only a quarter of
the screen with a red background, it's also half the speed of Ceefax (on
BBC1 anyway).



What make is your Sky+ box? My sky box is an Amstrad, I wish it was a
Pace, but since it is free it will do.
It will only be in use for another 8 months anyway.

JB wrote:

Also the cost of DTT is already falling are a huge rate. Remember the Beeb
were initially saying that a DTT STB cost GBP100, now it is down to
GBP40.
In 2010 it will be down GBP10 or lower.




Yep, I totally agree and this is without the government subsidising STBs,
etc.


There is no way a set top box will be below £10.

Java Jive wrote:


My sister was given a
DAB radio for Christmas, she notice the difference in the quality of the
stations and if she can notice, then I should think anyone can.


Spot the family man ...



I did not mean it the way it came out. My sister is the type of person
that will put a radio on and just have it in the background, just for
noise more than anything. she do not normaly notice the quality. but she
notice right away that Radio 4 on DAB was worse than on FM and also
Radio 2 on DAB is not as good as FM.
The main problem was that local radio is not on DAB,

Max Demian wrote:


You're seriously trying to tell me that you think people (the vast
majority anyway) would be willing to live in an apartment block that they
couldn't get TV in?

I don't see it happening myself


Then they would be on the streets then.


Do you mean evicted, or building barricades?


No, it is just the fact that there are not many places to rent here at a
decent price, so if the left the flats, they will be on the streets