TV switchover fiasco

Ivan wrote:


Being in the TV trade at the time, I can well remember the moans and groans
from people who had perfectly working VHF 405 TV's so didn't see any reason
to pay for a new UHF aerial and TV receiver, which in real terms cost them a
helluva lot more than a present-day 'possible' replacement for a
five-year-old digi box.

Remember it was to appease a few thousand pre-war viewer's with obsolete TV
sets (which had been in storage for years, and would therefore have possibly
blown up when reconnected) that we were lumbered with the 405 system for
donkey's years after the rest of Europe and other parts of world had opted
for 625 lines.

I think that even you must agree that there are times when we have to move
on, otherwise we would all still be stuck in the 1960s!


but changing from 405 to 625, was an improvement, changing from analogue
to digital is not.

Ivan wrote:


That is just guess work, a lot of people may still have the older
Ondigital boxes even when/if the analogue is switched off. what about
the first no Ondigital set top box, the small Pace, can that cope with 8K?



Like most other Freeview boxes (even the very early ones) the Pace digital
adaptor coped admirably.
DTVA technical specification includes:

Currently 14 free-to-view digital channels

Automatic and Manual channel search

Quick Electronic Programme Guide with favourite channel selection

Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) Subtitle system Capabilities - Fully DVB
compatible

Input Frequency - UHF (430-862 MHz) - Bandwidth: 8 MHz

Demodulator - COFDM waveform, 2k/8k modes - Fully DVB-T ETSI 300 744
compatible

Video Output - PAL, RGB, S-VHS

Graphic User Interface - English and Welsh

Software - downloadable

Power and Consumption - Low power operation 8 watts - Ultra Low Power
Standby 1 watt


I am glad to hear it


An MHEG software download which will enable viewers to access interactive
digital text services will be ready in July 2002.

They be better off with out, then they do not get that poxy press red
logo. Og, its already been done :-)

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

This is a perfect example against the consumer electronics industry's
view that we should all go out and buy IDTVs because it's far better to
separate expensive TV sets from the cheap receivers that can be replaced
far more easily.

STBs are easy enough for the technically competent, but there's a lot of
people that have difficulty with juggling the two remote controls.
There's a significant minority of the population that say they would
never switch to digital, when they're asked in surveys. They've probably
got no idea what digital is, and avoid it because they know how bad they
are at handling technology.

It's unfortunate that the STB and TV manufacturers have not worked
together to make the units work together more transparently. There is a
SCART data link standard that could allow most of the STB's functions to
be handled from the TV's remote control, if only anyone could be
bothered to implement it.

--
Dave Farrance

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Here we go again, what is it with you people about more muxes and more
bloody channels?



Wrong; more muxes = more capacity = eases pressure on bit rates.

Do you really think it will work that way? No, they will cram crap into
the extra space.




We can not fill up the ones we got now without a lot
of repeats and crap.
What we need is decent picture quality.



Then we need more capacity.


What we need is to take some of the crap channels off.
Top up T.v should never have been allowed to happen.
Too many shopping channels


No, because they leave a lot of capacity unused, they just don't want to
increase their bit rates on DAB.

That do not make sense, surley it do not cost any more to increase the
bit rate



We do not need more muxes, we need less channels and more quality.



Or vice versa....


But it will not happen.

news wrote:
I can't believe anyone would prefer analogue text, with the mind numbing
page numbers ticking over at the top.

With digital text we have the cursor keys to take us where and when we
want.

I prefer the analogue system. Basically, every "digital text"
box I've used so far has a mindblowingly bad user interface which
has different navigation on each service and very slow feedback
when the user operates some controls. Maybe the interface
will settle down like teletext did and maybe boxes will speed
up to compensate, like analogue did with Fastext and page caching,
but there are an awful lot of digital receivers already out there.
I wonder if part of the problem is that the service designers are
using the latest fastest kit rather than what's used in homes.

There's also the serious basic problem that not all the content
from the analogue service is available on the Freeview and
Sky services. Some receivers support the "analogue text over
digital" DVB-TXT and I think that should be continued. Boxes
supporting it seem mostly fast with that even if slow on the other.

Finally, patriotism: a great British design which has lasted
over 30 years and was praised by many nobles last year.

As for the programming, that's ultimately a matter of personal taste.

Aye. I like the extra channels. I think the five analogue
terrestial channels should be free-to-view on standard platforms,
rather than itv1, c4 and five being used to promote Sky in
non-Freeview areas. That mind-blowingly obvious step probably
needs to be in the final mixed analogue/digital broadcast
agreements and it should hold back switchover. I don't think
it's acceptable for public service broadcasters to promote
dominant commercial suppliers, at least. Now that's a fiasco!

--
MJR

Dave Farrance wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

This is a perfect example against the consumer electronics industry's
view that we should all go out and buy IDTVs because it's far better
to separate expensive TV sets from the cheap receivers that can be
replaced far more easily.

STBs are easy enough for the technically competent, but there's a lot
of people that have difficulty with juggling the two remote controls.
There's a significant minority of the population that say they would
never switch to digital, when they're asked in surveys. They've
probably got no idea what digital is, and avoid it because they know
how bad they are at handling technology.


According to Ofcom's latest figures 59.4% of the population have digital
TV now with, say, 97%+ using set-top boxes. There may be a small
minority of ultra-technophobes out there, but they really need
instructions / help rather than being told to buy an expensive IDTV
which might need to be replaced in the not-too-distant future, e.g. if
you bought an IDTV now you wouldn't be able to receive HDTV on it,
whereas if you bought a £30 set-top box now you could buy another
set-top box for, say £50 in a few years' time that will be able to
receive HDTV. Another issue is the proposed change to 8K, which
Intellect (the consumer electronics industry's "spokesman") favour, and
yet someone who favoured buying IDTVs over buying set-top boxes could be
unlucky and buy THREE IDTVs when they could have kept their old TV and
bought 2 new STBs.


It's unfortunate that the STB and TV manufacturers have not worked
together to make the units work together more transparently.


I agree. And you have to wonder why they haven't done so. Could it be
that they'd far prefer us to buy IDTVs to bump their profits up?


There is
a SCART data link standard that could allow most of the STB's
functions to be handled from the TV's remote control, if only anyone
could be bothered to implement it.


Absolutely.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

MJ Ray wrote:
news wrote:
I can't believe anyone would prefer analogue text, with the mind
numbing page numbers ticking over at the top.

With digital text we have the cursor keys to take us where and when
we want.

I prefer the analogue system. Basically, every "digital text"
box I've used so far has a mindblowingly bad user interface which
has different navigation on each service and very slow feedback
when the user operates some controls.


My Pioneer DBRTF100 Freeview box is quick for displaying digital text
pages, especially when you compare it to Ceefax where you have to wait
for the sodding page number to scroll round. I think it has a lot to do
with the CPU speed inside the STB. My main problem with digital text is
that it doesn't update, e.g. football scores, share prices etc.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I prefer the analogue system. Basically, every "digital text"
box I've used so far has a mindblowingly bad user interface which
has different navigation on each service and very slow feedback
when the user operates some controls.
My Pioneer DBRTF100 Freeview box is quick for displaying digital text
pages,

My award for "worst. receiver. ever." would go to a Pioneer
Freeview, but I'm not sure of the model number. About 14
months old, with one indicator light on the box. It is fast
at *displaying* BBCi pages, but very slow bringing up the
first screens of teletext and skytext. Slow control response
and a very narrow remote control range (not more than about 20
degree vertical is very annoying when most people I know put
the Freeview box on the VCR/DVD under the TV) cripple it.

especially when you compare it to Ceefax where you have to wait
for the sodding page number to scroll round.

That's between you and your decoder's page cache. It's solvable.
My receiver caches 5 pages either side and the fastext linked
pages, which is enough that it's only a noticeable delay when
you key a page number, rather than browsing. It reacts to the
control instantly and the remote control works over a wide arc
(unless the low winter sun is shining directly on the sensor).

I think it has a lot to do
with the CPU speed inside the STB. My main problem with digital text is
that it doesn't update, e.g. football scores, share prices etc.

That's bad too. Are all Freeview services as slow to update as BBCi?

I think Eurosport have recently changed to using one system to
update content across all platforms. Why doesn't everyone?

--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

--

Michael Chare

"Ad" wrote in message
...
Michael Chare wrote:


but changing from 405 to 625, was an improvement,


There was also the introduction of colour which was only ever avaliable with
625
lines


So it was an improvement.
digital is a step back, apart from extra channels.


changing from
analogue to digital is not.


Something is wrong with your equipment or setup, or both.


If you get a better (clearer) picture with digital then likely the analogue
picture is not that good quite possibly because of poor reception which you
may
be able to nothing about (easily).

The more I use satellite the more I think that it is the sensible solution.
If
terrestrial analogue TV did not exist I do wonder if anyone would have
bothered
with DTT. Just a pity ITV, CH4 and 5 are still encrypted.

satellite is not much better.

"Ad" wrote in message
...
Michael Chare wrote:


but changing from 405 to 625, was an improvement,


There was also the introduction of colour which was only ever avaliable with
625
lines


So it was an improvement.
digital is a step back, apart from extra channels.


changing from
analogue to digital is not.


Something is wrong with your equipment or setup, or both.


If you get a better (clearer) picture with digital then likely the analogue
picture is not that good quite possibly because of poor reception which you
may
be able to nothing about (easily).

The more I use satellite the more I think that it is the sensible solution.
If
terrestrial analogue TV did not exist I do wonder if anyone would have
bothered
with DTT. Just a pity ITV, CH4 and 5 are still encrypted.

satellite is not much better.

In terms of picture quality with a good signal, yes.

My impression of satellite is that if you have line of sight to the satellite
you should get good reception. Coverage is about 94% of UK homes.

With DTT reception can be flakey and coverage is more like 73% at the moment.

--

Michael Chare