Slashdot Mirror

Millions of "Brits" have already had the old-fashioned Cefax replaced by the newer freeview information services. Journalists only just notice because it's London's turn now.

We have Freeview+, Freesat+, Sky+, and whatever Virgin Media call their DVR (I'm one of the unlucky sods living in the half of the country without cable). TalkTalk TV also has the option of a DVR box, although I'm not sure that service is open to new customers at the moment.

The Sky, Virgin and TalkTalk boxes are supplied by the service provider, but there are loads of Freeview and Freesat DVRs available on general sale. TiVo isn't even a blip on the UK DVR market, and I'm not surprised that they're risking the wrath of their existing users, all five of them, by cancelling the service.

That's what they do in the UK - provide free television by satellite. I wish we had this in the US, Mexico, and Canada but so far neither Dish, Directv, or any other company has offered it:

http://www.freeview.co.uk/

There is actually a parliament channel?

Freeview channel 81, which is the one just after BBC news (channel 80).

Second, is BBC the only supplier of TV programming in the British market (aside from satellite)? If there are other minor networks, that want to specify their own DRM or just don't want to participate, I'd think the TV manufacturers would be apoplectic.

The TV content providers on "terrestrial" (the analogue, "free" broadcast) are:
BBC (public service)
ITV (commercial)
Channel Four (public service, but funded by adverts)
Five (commercial)

There are, by my count, up to* 48 additional "free" channels on digital broadcast via the Freeview service, a fair chunk of which are provided by the above 4 providers (I guess around 15-20 content providers, though corporate connections aren't always clear). Pretty much everyone has Freeview now since it's £30 for a box that gives you all these channels for free.

I'll point out that Freeview is ran by... The BBC. Well, "Freeview is managed by DTV Services Ltd, a company owned and run by its five shareholders - BBC, BSkyB, Channel 4, ITV and Arqiva", but it was only thanks to the BBC that it got going.

After free-to-air, there are 3 further alternatives for broadcasting, with a lot of channel overlap even above them all also showing Freeview:
Sky (sattelite) - channels
Virgin (cable) - channels
BT (relatively trivial, a mix of freeview and broadband delivery, dont think they have their own channels)

The situation for downloading programming is a bit of a mess right now, providers have their own software and it's a nuisance. BBC did try to get a combined thing going but it got shot down, I have some hopes for Hulu which is on the way. Oh yes and BBC got the whole online delivery going too, the other channels basically followed their lead. For DRM, TV's/boxes sold everywhere are probably going to need a flexible system that can cope with many forms, and oft-updated of DRM anyway, so one more in the mix won't really matter.

* Obligitory "up to" small print: Whether you'll get all those channels is another matter, though most people get most of the best channels and about everyone should get the rest when the analogue signal is switched off (digital will take over the whole spectrum).

To be honest, I find the difference in picture quality between SD Freeview (DVB-T) and SD Freesat (DVB-S) to be greater than that between SD Freesat and HD Freesat.

That's comparing a Freeview tuner built into the TV, and a Freesat set-top box connected to the same TV via HDMI. The compression that is applied to Freeview makes a huge negative impact on the picture quality.

Sorry to disagree but I am unable to receive digital TV through my aerial at all. And I'm not alone.
The map at the apparently reputable http://www.wolfbane.com/articles/ukdcmap.htm shows most areas of the country require an amplified extra hi-gain aerial (as of April 2007). The areas that require just a set-top aerial are very small so you're probably just lucky.
The Freeview postcode checker at http://www.freeview.co.uk/ tells me that I won't receive channels until 2012.
When that happens I will also probably have to upgrade to a wideband aerial (as will most houses in most areas that do not receive their signal from Crystal Palace).
And here's the problem: I never asked for digital, I can say with confidence that most people didn't - but now I have to put up with extra costs and hassle, AND paying a TV licence that funds BBC channels I can't watch until 2012. Hooray! Who asked them to do this? I'd rather pay for more police on the streets, etc, etc. OR how about universal broadband?

Here, in the UK, we have free terrestrial digital television [1]. I get about 30 channels of TV (DVB-T PAL resolution) and 40 of audio through my antenna. In a year or so analogue will be turned off so all new TVs come with digital receivers. There are also unencrypted free channels on satellite (DVB-S PAL and HD). I'm not sure how many right now but it must be nearing 100 odd [2]

So yes this isn't useful for premium services and pay per view where the broadcaster insists on a secure path but there is an awful lot of programming out there which is free and can be recorded.

[1] http://www.freeview.co.uk/home
[2] http://www.astra2d.com/freesat-epg.htm

Freeview box http://www.freeview.co.uk/channels/?__SITE=public& p%5B0%5D=channels and a monitor.

problem solved.

Well, I'm also a yank, but I have been following it. Freeview is digital tv over the airwaves. Basically all tv in the UK will be digital, starting a while back in limited areas. Anybody that isn't getting their signal through cable or satellite would have to use freeview. Which of course requires a different tuner than tvs already have.
http://www.freeview.co.uk/home

OK you get about 80 stations for $26 How many are actually worth watching? and would your like them better if they had no ads :-) and better still could be critical about any company without worrying about loss of Ad revenue.

There is also Freeview which is getting increaingly good 40 odd free channels with about 5-10 digital only commercial channels with anything worth watching (Freeview would have died without Aunty comming in an giving the kiss of life, she's rather keen on going digital)

I'm not saying the system is prefect but for the most part I like what there doing with my money

You could always spend your cash on moving to the UK where we are well served with free to air programs via Freesat and Freeview. I use Freeview which works through your existing aerial and has all the channels I need. The cost of the decoders has plummeted in recent months. I paid about £100 18 months ago. You can now get them from the supermarket for less than £30. There are paid for channels available on Freeview if you want them and, of course Sky satellite.

> It's possible that it's a simple matter of economics. I love internet radio and listen all the
> time but I get the feeling that "free" internet radio is a temporary thing.

It might be a temporary thing for now. I'm sure in a few years you'll get TV through the net - when we all have 50meg broadband anyway - and they'll throw in radio for free there as there won't be a bandwidth problem.

In the uk, we have this:

http://www.freeview.co.uk/

Digital TV - 30 odd channels and 80 radio stations, or something. I've not counted. They're all free. You have to buy a TV license (£120 or so a year) and a Freeview box (one off purchase at, from £40 or so upwards but no subscription fee) and you're set. The quality of the radio is better than DAB (digital audio broadcast) which is nice for music lovers, and there's a range of stuff available like christian, asian stations as well as the usual stuff. I'm sure if you were bothered about this sort of thing you could feed your freeview box onto your server at home and stream it over to whichever PC you happen to be on. I'm on an uncapped 2meg connection at home so as long as it was just me listening I'd be ok!

If you can't spring for a new TV...

Unless you also want HDTV, a new TV won't be necessary, a set-top box to convert the signal should be all that's required, and hopefully the economy of scale should mean the boxes become pretty cheap.

When digital over-the-air TV started in the UK, the boxes were very expensive (and the Pay TV operator running the show collapsed). When it was relaunched as a primarily free-to-air service the boxes started out at the £100 mark, but as boxes have come down in price (now to around £30 for a basic unit) it has been a very popular choice, and that's without any government subsidy. More details of our service are at the Freeview website.

Secondly, the service is mostly ok, but as I commented last time this subject came up, it is subject to interference, which renders it unwatchable. Also, there are times when I lose 5 or 6 channels for maybe 3 days at a time. It's not just me or my equipment either, as I talked to someone today who complained about losing the same channels as me at the same time. And he is receiving from a completely different transmitter.

So my main problem with digital tv is the crappy service. There is a slight advantage in the fact that because channels are multiplexed within several different frequencies, you can actually get a pc add on card that can "tune" to 2 different channels within the same multiplex at the same time, with only one tuner on the card.

DRM and politics are areas where we'll have to wait and see ...

There are a lot of people here in the UK using this kind of setup (called Freeview) and a lot of set-top boxes from a huge variety of manufacturers. The boxes themselves are about £20-60 (depending on features) and even the most basic have a 7-day programme guide (EPG).

From the Freeview site:

"It is the new, free digital service providing over 30 free digital TV channels, over 20 digital radio stations plus a new whole world of interactive services. It's broadcast from transmitters and received via a rooftop aerial.

It works like traditional TV but because the signals are Digital you need an box to convert them (or a new Digital TV with all the technology in a box already built-in). This means more channels can be transmitted with extra features such as interactivity and widescreen pictures. "

Now, this is being marketed in the UK as a means to get the interactive services and many more channels. Nowhere on the site (that I have found) does it try to push consumers into adopting just because their sets will 'go black' in 4 years time. Surely this is the way the US needs to go? Try and get as much voluntary adoption as possible at this early stage, and not start the 'TV vouchers' talk until 2008.

This is completely retarded. Why not put that money into creating cheap HD Antennas that output shitty analog to Pronged/Coax/Component so people can continue on as usual with a new antenna?

Because there can be many MPEG-encoded streams being broadcast at a time. In the UK we have some 40 free digital terrestial channels.

If you wanted to, you could get in all 40 channels, decode all 40 of them in real time, output them as analog signals, modulate them to thier old frequencies and shove them down coax to people's TVs. It would be possible to do. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be cost effective, since you'd need roughly 40 times the processing resources that a single-channel decoder would call for. 40 channels * 30 frames per second * 480 lines/frame * 640 pixels per line * 16 bits per pixel = 5.9 gigabits per second is a lot of data, and would need a lot of computing power.

Also, people would have the bother of installing a new ariel. At least, it's a bother when it's on top of your house, as many are. Plugging in a box is a lot easier; no going on the roof required.

Just my $0.02,

Michael

Set top boxes cost from as little as £30 for terrestrial thus meaning those 70 million analogue TVs will be good for years to come.

• There are around 20-30 channels, not just 5, broadcast digitally in clear in the UK (not including radio channels)
• The digital TV broadcasts are already pre-encoded with MPEG2 and AC3. Each multiplex (which can contain several independent streams, typically about 6 channels each) runs at about 24Mbit/sec. Picture and sound is of much higher quality than VHS.

> It's not bizarre, most people don't have access to digital terrestrial TV

Yes they do. From http://www.freeview.co.uk/canireceivefreeview/inde x.html :
--
The majority of UK homes are now able to receive FREEVIEW
--

>I personally have 4 channels, as my channel 5 reception is less than
>watchable. I tried one of those 'set-top boxes' (hint: it's only set-top if
>your TV is flat on top), and it doesn't work. When I can actually receive a
>channel, the picture's blurry and low-quality, and the interface is garbage.
>So not even 5 channels.

You're unrepresentative, then. That doesn't help you, of course, but there you go - it's fine for me, and `the majority of UK homes`. Where abouts are you? (I'm in Greater London). There's a postcode checker on that site - if you're in an area which is supposed to be covered and you're not getting an acceptable signal then perhaps you should tell someone. There's still some time before analogue is switched off. You might need to get a decent ariel, or have your ariel checked to make sure it's not shifted position since it was installed, and that it's working properly - digital TV is more fussy than analogue.

The TV companies are currently upgrading transmitters, increasing their power etc - I couldn't get a decent Channel 5 until I bought a Freeview box (hint: most of them aren't described as 'set-top' - on top of your TV is likely to be rather warm).

30 actually:

http://freeview.co.uk/whatson/index.html

I doubt you'd bother making something that recorded from an analogue source - too much CPU power.

e.g.
Freeview in the UK : http://www.freeview.co.uk/

Plug set top box into old TV, Tada, digital television. At some point the UK government is going to have to give away these boxes to get the last few people to switch over. Some people need a better aerial, the frequency they are using is a bit weak in some areas.

Works though. It has to be said though, when you switch from analog to digital in the UK you go from 5 channels of barely passable TV to 5 channels of passable TV plus another 5 of not quite horrible TV plus 20 channels of complete shite.

dvb-t fta channels for the UK:

link

Not really; Murdoch's (aka 'Fox') basic 'Sky' package is 20GBP per month (in addition to the license, obviously :-), rising to about 40GBP per month with all the channels.

How much does the TV Licencing tax actually get you? How many channels does the BBC offer?

If you're still using an analogue terrestrial receiver, then you get two BBC channels, two privately-held channels funded by advertising (ITV + five), and Channel 4 (publicly owned, but funded entirely by advertising and other commercial activities).

If you're using a digital terrestrial receiver (20-30GBP one-off payment for the set-top box), then you can usually get all the Freeview channels - the two full BBC channels, BBC3/CBBC (new comedy and kids programmes, respectively - they share a single MUX), BBC4/CBeebies (documentaries, current affairs, arts and kids, respectively), abc1 (US shows), BBC, ITN and Sky News, Sky Sports News, Sky Travel, UKTV History, three music/yoof channels (TMF, The Hits, FTN), BBC Parliament, and a bunch of home shopping channels. You also get a whole raft of radio stations, including the BBC's eleven stations.

So, all in all, it's probably fairly comparable with your arrangements.

licence fee still stands, but there are quite a few free-to-air stations, especially if you take into account free-to-air digital

On a related point the analogue signal is due to be switch off here in the UK in 2010 (or there abouts). The BBC is heavily involved in a move over to digital transmission with Freeview. There is no monthly cost (above the license fee) for this system. Recently a company called TopUp TV has started to provide paid-for extra channels on freeview which require a decoding card to be perchased. This is something the BBC don't want as it starts to ask the question "do we really need a fixed license fee or could the BBC go paid-for viewing?" Fortunatley for the BBC there aren't (yet at least) many freeview boxes with the ability to use the decoding cards. Now if they also allow people to buy and download shows what production is left that can't be quantified and charged for? Radio? - its just a matter of time? ...

Yes, we are doing Digital TV over the airwaves like that. I'm not sure if it is DVB based (I don't think it is), but its all broadcasted in spare UHF frequencies. It started off as a pay service called onDigital. They weren't doing very well, as the channel linup was limited, compared to Sky (digital satellite) or ntl and Telewest (cable), they weren't doing too well, so the product was re-branded ITV Digital, in line with the ITV channels. They spent ludicrous sums of cash on rights to football matches nobody really cared about. The company ultimately folded about 18 months ago. What was left was just the free-to-air channels supplied by the BBC. A new service was launched, called Freeview which only carried totally free (as in beer) programming. You just had to spend 100 on a decoder, or you could use your existing ITV Digital decoder (ITV Digital subsidised the STBs, but wrote them off as a loss so everybody could keep them). A new service is now launching in parrallel with Freeview called TopUP TV, which carries some paid programming. Its so far caused problems as its added more channels than some of the latest generation decoders can support!

Freeview
topup.tv

We've now got FreeView, a free to air replacement. Same technology sans encryption. There's also a group called Top Up TV, who are looking to add some pay channels to Freeview, but they look likely to fail due to lack of new equipment to receive pay channels on, and a poor selection of channels (limited due to lack of UHF bandwidth).

The UK have has a DigitalTV service that broadcasts to standard antenni for a little while now. FreeView

Instead of the sideband system mentioned in this Slashdot story, the UK DAB (Digtial Audio Broadcasting) system uses "multiplexes" of entire frequencies to broadcast several digital stations at once. So instead of each FM station carrying it's own digital data, there are an additional 5 digital-only FM multiplexes each carrying a variable number of channels.

And here's where our system starts to suck very badly IMHO.

Since there is only a limited number of multiplexes, each with a limited amount of bandwidth, there is competition to squeeze as many digital channels onto each multiplex as possible. The net result is that the bitrates for each station are lowered and lowered to fit more stations in.

Most stations run at 96kilobits/sec. Some run as low as 64kbit/s. A handful run at 128kbit/s. Only one station, the classical and jazz station BBC Radio 3, runs at 192kbit/sec- and that's the highest bitrate of any DAB station.

Now although admittedly there is no hiss or crackle and you don't have to remember the frequencies, what you get at the end of the day, due to the low bitrates, is something which sounds worse than a good FM radio or broadband Internet, and several times worse than what you get get from a digital TV decoder (all the DAB stations are also broadcast as audio-only channels on the UK's existing digital satellite, cable and digital-TV-through-a-normal-aerial television systems).

So this USA system, whereby each normal FM station carries an additional digital sideband, quite literally sounds a much better idea- it should allow more space for each station's own digital output thereby giving more more bandwidth to each station and less competition to fit into a restricted space.

"The technology is still pretty new"

I don't know how it's different but we've had Eureka 147 DAB digital radio for 6 years in the UK. We're also pretty keen on mainstream digital terrestrial television broadcasting too.

It's not happening here in the US, why does Japan think that it's going to happen there?

Because Japan is more advanced technologically with respect to TV!

Because the US went for analogue cable and NTSC to get there first and other nations waited a while and went for newer technology the US is stuck with legacy equipment which causes 'upgrade friction'. Joe public will not see the advantages of upgrading and so be very reluctant to. This is why cable providers are trying to push HDTV as it is an improvement.

The UK is seeing a similar affect with respect to 3G telephones. All we want to do is make calls, text, play the odd game and take silly photos. We find making video calls awkward and inhibitive so where as 2.5G phones sell like hotcakes 3G just isn't selling.

In the UK cable was uncommon until recently and most providers adopted digital early. Much of the public still watches only five channels using an antenna. So when free digital terrestrial (Freeview - digital down an Antenna using COFDM which is respectable quality) appeared combined with low cost receivers (about $70+) its become popular. Interestingly the UK isn't interested in HDTV as we have PAL and most of our TVs have for years supported component video by way of the SCART connector. The gain in quality moving to HDTV isn't sufficient enough to make it worth while when you have 100Hz digital widescreen TVs at a few hundred quid.

Our house has a digital satelite receiver in the main room and a 'Freeview' box in the bedroom. I'm getting my partner's mother one for her Chrimble present. They are now very much an affordable consumer device.

Interestingly when the UK went from 405 line TV to PAL they left the 405 line transmitters running for a while and then one day just turned them off. They bought new TVs for those who complained because it was cheaper than keeping the transmitters running.

Er, mate, Nokia have been making superb digital TV set-top-boxes for the European market for donkey's years. Mobile phones are the new market for them, they've been making STBs for longer than that.

Ask anyone about the UK's digital terrestrial system (multi-channel digital TV through an aerial- no subscription, no cable, no dish required) and everyone will tell you that Nokia is one of the top three brands- faster channel switching, faster menus, faster multimedia content, and it doesn't crash.

anyways.. how about broadcasting digital signals instead?

That's what they do in the UK. They still broadcast the major five national stations and the regional variations on analogue, but they also broadcast them on digital along with several other free-to-air stations. You pay a one-off fee (£99) for the equipment (if you don't have a digital TV, or satellite/cable receiver) but apart from that it's free.

FreeView is the UK's digital TV service, it also broadcasts several radio channels. Now if only I could set up a wishlist for "Mornington Crescent" without TiVo insisting on a Baker Street, I'd be set!

Nearly no DVDs in the UK are only 4:3 unless they were TV broadcasts formatted in that way. Most are 16:9 with a few have two versions of the movie. Recently all of Sky's PPV movies went wide screen. Before then I'd only watch the widescreen one's anyway.

Most subscribers to TV (Satelite and Cable) receive digitally. You can also receive digital TV down your Antenna for free. Digital transmissions and the receivers can support pure widescreen, letter box widescreen (for 4:3 TVs) and 'pan and scan'. In most cases the processing has already been done but you can in theory transmit a widescreen signal together the pan and scan data. Many movies and new programs on analogue are widescreen (letterbox) broadcasts.

UK Widescreen TVs support both line 23 WSS and SCART signalling which means the TV can select the most appropriate mode in which to display the video. They can display 4:3 either 'squashed' or with black side borders. A 36" TV will be similar to a 26" 4:3 in that mode. Many of these TVs now have terrestrial (antenna based) digital decoders built in.

I really don't understand this aversion to widescreen in the US or is it just that you're a bit behind us and don't have the broadcasts yet to warrant it?

Indeed. We have no HDTV *at all*.

We do however have no non-digital channels now. The only 5 you could get on analogue are all avaliable on cable, satellite or the rather snazzy Freeview which is a BBC led digital service that just chucks digital over the air to your standard aerial.

The Government want to turn off analogue in 2010 and despite the fact there's already no reason to not switch they don't think they'll make it.

2006 for the US isn't going to happen.

> [Interactive TV] just is never going to happen.

Maybe iTV is never going to happen in the States, but just as with cellphones, DAB and many technologies that gain momentum through standards and cross-border co-operation , the US is being left behind, as Interactive TV is thriving in Europe, especially in the UK, and I'm amazed that many tech-savvy Americans don't seem to realise this

~45-50% of UK households *with a TV* have digital TV, and of them 65 percent of have access to ITV

In simple numbers ,that's about 8 million households have Interactive TV in the UK. As a comparison, there are about 10 million Uk households with access to the Net.

There are about 6.25 million households with digital satelite alone. All of them have access to very, very advanced interactive services. There are about 2 million households with digital cable, using Liberate middleware

The new Free to air DTT boxes are selling like hot cakes, and there are many Interactive services available through the BBC and others

Here's a wide range of iTV screenshots

In europe as a whole 'interactive TV was estimated to be available in 31 million European households at the end of 2002, creating a potential audience of 72 million viewers'

Most people can receive 5 channels via aerial, approx. 30 using a freeview digital decoder. Sky via satellite delivers more channels than I care to remember and my cable service delivers practically the same only by cable (with cable modem :) )

If you pay for your digital TV (Sky, cable) then sure you do. But if you have a Freeview (free digital terrestrial) digibox receiver, you don't need a smartcard to receive digital TV, which transmits about 26 TV channels and 12 radio stations. You'd actually watch about 10 of the TV channels regularly, and all the major ones transmit anamorphic widescreen most of the time. (There used to be a pay-subscription digital terrestrial broadcaster, OnDigital/ITV Digital, but they went bust, and the BBC more or less took it over. More info here.

So in the UK, the genie is out of the bottle. A TV marked "DVB" just works, and will continue to work. Why does Hollywood bother messing about with copy restriction, screwing the adoption of digital TV in the US, when it's already free and unrestricted in the UK (and Australia)?

>And no TV without advertising? Would that be a bad thing? We have it. - we even have Digital TV that's (some channels) ad free Though we do pay a fee.

Ordinary analogue terrestrial,

digital terrestrial (previously known as On Digital and then ITV digital

Digital Satellite, and

Various cable TV companies

I'm a digital satellite viewer myself; more on that later.

The various cable TV companies also offer cable modem access. For some companies, this is a seperate device, such as a standalone modem which is connected seperately to the TV set-top-box; but some cable companies have ethernet ports built into their digital decoders. These provide you with simple-to-configure (assuming you have an ethernet card and appropriate cabling to keep your PC a fairly good distance away from the TV, because there's nothing more annoying when you're trying to watch a film then to have noisy PC's running (or kids playing noisy games on the same)). In that sense, the device could easily be a router. (However, having had past experience with UK cable companies, they will advertise such as device as X, but it's really only a Y)

How this integrates with the plans of the TV cable companies, who usually run their own systems on equipment that they supply, not catering for user-acquired decoders, I don't know, but it may be an attractive prospect for some of them.

Back to the digital satellite. Sky also provide a PVR service, called Sky+. Essentially, it's a hard disk, connected to a satellite tuner, connected to a quad-LNB dish, allowing the box to receive MPEG-2 streams from two channels, record one, and view another at the same time, together with nifty features that TIVO users would be familiar with. I don't have one of these, but I expect one day I'll be persuaded to part with the GBP300 plus GBP10/month service charge. Because the satellite system is one-way, with interactive services provided over a telephone line, I can't see much use for a router in it, unless Sky plan to break into the ADSL market; although I'd still be uncomfortable with that (eggs, one basket, etc.).

Now, what I'd really like to see developed is a satellite/cable receiver, which records MPEG-2 to hard disk, and dumps the same to DVD-R instead of to video. I'd bet the movie industry would hate this idea though. However, given that the UK market for satellite receivers is far more open (you can buy them in the shops, and self-install, dealing with Sky only insofar as getting a contract to receive subscription channels and a viewing card), some bright spark out there should hopefully be able to design one of these. Let me test it for you!!.

Why did virtually every country in the world rejected ATSC if it's so good? Multipath kills ATSC. It doesn't matter how much power you throw at it.

Television magazines editorialized against ATSC. TV Broadcast Magazine, in a January 2001 editorial said, "Digital broadcasting in the U.S. appears to have received the death penalty." Broadcast Engineering, in August, 2000, said, Kill The Beast Now!

What's wrong with this picture? I live in a downtown apartment and will likely NEVER be able to receive ATSC (cable doesn't need the overhead of ATSC). The UK delivers 30 free digital channels with a $99 box.

Demonstrations show COFDM/DVB-T working inside buses. ATSC can't. Mobile data reception is impossible. I wanted a webtable. Now I don't see the point.

It was simple corruption. ATSC wanted royalties.

The FCC assigned a royalty sharing organization, ATSC, to deliver a "unified" Digital Television system. But ATSC had no motivation to use the improved European-developed COFDM DTV system now the world-wide DTV standard. Unlike ATSC, it works. You can get it free over the air or in a bus. I believe former FCC director William Kennard is to blame. He didn't want to slow down the "lucrative" 3G auctions. Now we're stuck with a broken DTV system, the VHF auctions are delayed (again), and everyone lost...except the cellular carriers.

In the UK, all you need is a $99 box with rabbit ears. US broadcasters are stuck. They may eventually be forced into PPV and soft porn since only rooftop antennas can pick up ATSC. The FCC let this happen. It's criminal negligence."

Well, in the UK, you've got Cable (NTL or Telewest generally) or if you want Digital, you have Sky and Freeview (used to be called OnDigital then ITV Digital then bust).

Freeview is in its unfancy and is basically free stuff. I also know very little about it.

Sky on the other hand has tonnes of packages. In short, all the decent channels (IMO) are spread about several packages. Which means that if you want all of them you have to pay the premium rate and get 55 other really rubbish ones.

AFAIK there is no way to pick and chose your cable products too. You just have to pick a bundle and put up with the rubbish ones that come with it.

Interestingly DTT boxes are cheaper than DAB radios, and the BBC have abandoned plans to improve DAB coverage.