Slashdot Mirror
Brit TV Won't Go Digital Till 2012
judgecorp writes "While the US switches off analog(ue) TV in 2009, it stays on in the UK till 2012, according to a timetable, the Digital Dividend Review released by the UK regulator Ofcom. And while the US taxpayer will fork out $3 billion, there's no mention of government subsidising the switchover in the UK - apart from the licence fee which Brits pay for the BBC, or course. The good news is that the 112 prime MHz of spectrum freed up will be used for wireless broadband, rural coverage for wireless services, and unlicensed spectrum for data. All things that will keep us so busy, we won't bother to watch TV, anyway."
No digital till the end of the world...
What kind of crap(py) news is that!
Game Company Database
That's because, despite standing to make gazillions from the sale of the analogue frequencies, the government expects the BBC to pay for the old and poor to get digital boxes. And then they grumble when the BBC asks for a license fee increase.
Bloody duplicitous politicians. *mutter*
I've got digital TV now. Millions have. The headline should read "Brits will keep analogue TV around until 2012". This isn't about getting digital telly, it's about how long we keep analogue around for the people who don't upgrade.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Because the government owns it all anyways.
Is 3 billion a big chunk of the budget ( $10 donation per person ..that we get back in the form of better emergency services cause of spectrum availability and clearer tv)? Compared to other things money is being spent on .. is this going to affect anything? I understand it could vaccinate/feed all of Zambia or something .. but we weren't doing that anyway.
What exactly are the benefits of digital TV anyway? I don't understand this HD TV and digital TV stuff, to me TV is good enough as is.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
I agree with the Masked Engineer. Don't have a hard date, merely print "a label on every single device with an analog TV tuner explaining to consumers that there will come a day when that tuner will cease to function and an 'adapter' will be needed at extra cost."
e er/f_mario_orazio-09.21.05.shtml
That puts the consumer on notice and allows broadcasters to make the switch when they're ready. If they're ready sooner, the consumers were warned. If it's later, it's later.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engin
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Brit TV Won't Go Digital Till 2012? Erm. No. We've had digital TV for years. According to a recent BBC News artice (which I can't find) over 60% of the population has some form of digital TV reciever. 2012 is when the last region will loose it's analogue signal. The big switch off of analogue starts in 2008. One area of Wales has already had it's analogue singles turned off.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish are out because they don't refer to the whole country, just small parts of it. What do you want us to use -- UK-ers? Ukes? Yobbos? You name it, I'll be happy to oblige.
That article says that the bandwidth "could be all the spectrum we need for wireless broadband, new mobile services and maybe some more unlicensed spectrum for Wi-Fi like services" however the BBC have stated that at least some (probably most) of the spectrum will be used to provide HDTV. There just isn't enough bandwidth at the moment to broadcast HDTV signals in the alotted space for all the freeview channels.
I was wondering - is it possible to wash your clothes in a dishwasher ? I don't have a washing machine and this would make my life a lot easier.
No we call them Frenchies, Krauts, and Polacks ;)
I was thinking, that instead of a "hard cutover", where the analog frequencies are cut off on a particular date, there should be a phased approach where the transmit power is cut down by say 20% per year. That way, people's analog sets won't just go suddenly blank, and there will be less consumer backlash from cutting the analog signals.
Just call us British, doesn't bother me at all, everyone knows what is meant and only an uptight arsehole would be bothered by it.
Your British, and Brit is just a shortened version of british. Its like calling Americans "Yanks", or "Yankies". Damn Brits
The Frogs, Krauts, and Polacks say don't be so sensitive.
"The switchover will happen first in places like Scotland which are not likely to interfere with the rest of Europe."
Apparently these guys have never heard of Sir William Wallace.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
We have nationalities, we're not from Britianland. Yah... we're from Britain, which also includes the letters "Brit". Personally I've never minded being called a Brit and have always thought of it as a semi-affectionate term... I could be wrong on that but nevermind.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
In Sweden they've already started shutting down the analog networks. Phase one (the island of Gotland and towns of Gävle and Motala) just started a month ago.
It's proceeding stepwise but all analog transmitters should be completely off-line by Dec 13.
Of course, Swedes aren't quite as TV-addicted as USians. (IIRC the statistic is an average of about 2 hours a day vs 4.5)
about seeing an American flag behind a British TV story.
Partly, it's about resolution; HDTV has more pixels, which makes for a nicer picture. And screen shape: the new digital TV supports wide-screen, which will make for better movie-viewing without having to compromise on full-screen vs. widescreen.
It's also a lot about bandwidth. The new digital signals are more efficient than the analog ones, so you can cram more channels into the spectrum. (Which means you don't always get higher resolution; they can cram 4 old-resolution channels into the space for one high-def signal. And a station can choose.)
And there's even more flexibility: a digital signal makes it easier to encode other kinds of signal: foreign languages, hypertext, etc.
But mostly it's about freeing up a certain set of frequencies so that they can be sold off for cell phones, wifi, etc. That's very valuable bandwidth at a frequency which can be better taken advantage of by small, hand-held devices. Some of it is allocated to emergency channels.
Here in Denmark we start switching next summer. It doesn't matter all that much because most "serious" viewers are on cable or satelite. In Belgium cable has a penetration of over 98%. This thing is mostly going to affect caravan owners I think. The decoders will probably drop in price so fast you won't believe it. Think about it: no single company to sit on the market and a device which is 100% electronic and has no moving parts. I think I will shell out a few extra and get one with a harddisk.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
We'll stop it the minute I stop hearing the U.S. being referred to as "The Colonies" or "The States". You've got all those wonderful choices like America, the U.S. the United States, the U.S. of A., or many others.
I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
yeah like a brit...
They are just hoping that the Maya were right and the world ends on the winter solstice in 2012. That way, there's the off chance that they don't have to make the switch.
Actually, we do call the French, Germans, and Polish "Europeans" over here, especially when we're talking about them all acting together. It's not like the English are switching over to Digital in 2012 and the Scottish aren't. Since the term United Kingdomers doesn't even exisit, the closest thing you lot can be labeled as is British, referring to that Great big island you all live on, unless of course, you're Northern Irish, in which case, too bad. A lot of Southern Americans are ticked off that you guys label U.S. citizens as "Americans" and use the term almost exclusively to refer to those living in the States, and you haven't stopped doing that yet either.
We're using SD digital in the UK. The picture is no clearer - it's the same as an analog picture with good reception, both are plain old PAL. It's just a way to get more channels.
Of course, having this switch now means that people will be gun-shy if HDTV ever takes off: "why do we have to buy another box, we just bought one two years ago?", "the last time we upgraded it didn't look any better", etc. We should have waited.
that freeing up of a portions of the frequency spectrum is not going to lead us to wireless panacea?
t rum/
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/12/spec
The solution is in smart end-points, not "reservation" of a tiny slice of frequency.
... these switchovers are not planned in advance but decided in closed rooms by a government that needs to close the budget.
A couple of months ago it was decided that analog transmission would stop on jan 1st, 2006.
That would give analog viewers only about 4 months to look for an alternative.
Only part of the country is covered by digital terrestrial TV, the remainder (which is the less densely populated part, so viewers would be less likely to have cable available) would have to switch to satellite TV.
These both a subscription services, while the original analog service can be freely received by anyone.
However, today it was decided to cancel the switchover and consider it again.
Don't you just love those opportunistic people? Need money... cut something off. Too much protest? reconsider it.
Well is wrong here. A canadian is an american a mexican is an american. an argentininan is an american,but unitedstatians do not like to call them americans and canadians get offended when you call them americans, and U.S is one of the few countries that splits the American continent in half. At least the olympic committee does not. And if you ask a Unitedstatian where the name America comes from they just go like ????.
The Slashdot FAQ states that the Politics section was for stories related the US government. Nowadays, we get stories in there about Canada, Britain, and everywhere else that have nothing to do with US politics. In fact, there are hardly any stories dealing with real politics in here.
Well, they could have run with the YRO story I submitted about Congress recently reaching a compromise deal to scale back some of the spookier elements of the PATRIOT Act, but I guess what kind of TV format the brits will be using to tune in their crap reality shows is far more important to discuss.
Also, what I neglected to observe is that only bad news about PATRIOT is ever newsworthy. Moderation of the bill, and stories of cool heads prevailing, don't really do much to help with EFF fund-raising, or provoke long threads of tirades about the current President which consistantly trigger Godwin's Law.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"We have nationalities, we're not from Britianland."
Did you mean to say Britain?!
Whats the big deal you bunch of limeys? :). Seriously though, its not like brit is derrogative (like limey, or frog might be taken to be) and you can call us in the USA, yanks all you want. Gotta call everyone something.
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
Who the HELL calls the USA "The Colonies"??? I call it "The States" all the time, sorry if that annoys you but it's just a short nice name.
What happens in 2009 when everything is supposed to be digital, and Canada still hasn't gone digital. Will it cause interference in places close to the border? I haven't heard of any plans for canada making the switch.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Too right. Brits objecting to being called Brits are almost as bad as those morons USians who object to being called USians.
> the French, Germans or Polish "Europeans" yet we still get
>that crappy label (which very few support) from Americans.
>We have nationalities, we're not from Britianland.
English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish are out because they don't refer to the whole country, just small parts of it. What do you want us to use -- UK-ers? Ukes? Yobbos? You name it, I'll be happy to oblige.
How about wanker? That's a uniquely British word, is it not?
We would if America was a country. It is actually a continent and includes Canada.
Is it any wonder people are suspicious of your foreign policy in the middle east when you can't even accept there is another country in your continent!
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
He used a parenthesis, but there is no true meaning to the first sentence of the article. Is the United States on in the UK until 2012? His second sentence is even worse. Judgecorp realized attaching the random fragments together didn't work, but he just used a dash instead of rewriting the sentence to get something sensible. Ironically Judgecorp recognized the complete lack of importance of his post by acknowleging that nobody cares.
Only on slashdot can you beg to keep your post from being selected and still get in two catagories and the front page.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Many times in bad weather such as snow storms, satellite TV goes out. Will digital broadcasts have the same problems? With analogue, it sometimes gets a little hard to make things out, and sounds a little staticy, but in the even of an emergency, you can still get the information across. With digital TV, when the signal starts getting lost, you often lose the entire picture and sound.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The people who stand to make money industry, tv manufactures, and the FCC(reselling unused bandwidth) know that 2 things will happen:
People wills ee the sticker and put off buying a TV
Everyone will get very upset that there purchase won't be anygood, and apply pressure to the FCC to lift the mandatory switch.
Espcially when it's 3 billion dollar cost begins to make headlines.
I WOuld like to write one though:
"This analog Television you are purchasing will be no good soon, and you will have to by a digital tuner. Thf FCC mandated this at a cost of 3 billion dollars.
Don't steal."
Do they even relize there are peple who only use the airwaves? That can't afford to go digital...
It suddenly occurs to me that the people who can't afford to pay for TV will have to find something else to do besides watch the boob tube all day. That can't be a bad thing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
wow unitedstatians? thats even worse bastardization than USian
I was taught that Amerigo Vespucci drew the first map and essentially attached his name to the landmass, but wikipedia seems to prefer the ????
England, Scotland, etc. aren't real countries. They have football teams, but they don't have their own governments (with significant power) or armies. The borders are non-existent, unless there's a sea in the way or something.
Speaking as someone raised in England with Scottish ancestry.
So really it's TWO continents then right? North America and South America. We're all technically Americans.
If I am to understand it correctly, moving to digital the data will still be either PAL or NTSC depending on where you are. It's just that it would be transmitted digitally.
I agree with you - more pixels please. When is digital HDTV going to be standard world wide? This PAL versus NTSC crap has gone on long enough!
when they were trying to invade Northern Ireland?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Given that we also call the French "frogs", the Germans "huns", and the Poles .. erm, got me there .. I wouldn't want to get on a high horse about what others choose to call us. Speaking as a Scot (a.k.a. Jock from the frozen north), I've got no problems with being called a Brit. It's not perjorative, and it is in fact pretty accurate. And I know we've got more in common with the English than we do with any other nation on the planet. You're not one of those crazed nationalists who insists on seeing the world from your perspective rather than others, are you?
If you want to see a truly separate nationality, go to Texas...
You and I may be, but I assume the person complaining isn't. The UK is larger than Great Britain; people from Northern Ireland, for example, are from the UK but not Great Britain.
It's still correct to call these people British though, 'British' is actually a correct term for a UK citizen, even if they are not from Great Britain. References: CIA World Factbook, alt.usage.english.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
You of course mean three others, right?
Canada
Mexico
Cuba (?)
And some of us in the States would like to call Texas and California seperate countries as well.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Ok, I am aware that the use of American is jingoistic, but it is the only geographical reference in our country title. Canada and Mexico and all other North and South American countries use a specific indentifier in their official state title by which they can be refered to. "United States" is abhorrently general since there are hundreds of countries that use the federal system to "unite" their seperate municipalities. This is exactly why U.K. is ok, because Britain is unique in that its government represents a united set of seperate former kingdoms and recognizes itself as such. Although other current countries are made up of former kingdoms, the U.K. seems to be the only one that recognizes this status in their title (although I may be wrong). So yeah, if you want to get technical on slang terms for nations, there ya go. But if you want to just stay in the informal, I say American almost anywhere in the world and what do people think? I'm pretty sure its not 2 continents. "The States" could be Russia for all I know, as they are comprised of several semi-autonomous units referred to as states.
I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
How exactly do you pronounce USians? Not that I'm offended by the term, but a name that works only in text form is kind of useless. (The nationality formerly known as...)
We call ourselves Americans because that is the commonly accepted form. If you want to talk about people from the continent is North (or South) Americans really that hard? Besides keep in mind we didn't actually choose the name, it would be more accurate to say the name was applied to us - the american colonies. For some reason when we stoped being colonials we didn't breifly become confederates then statesmen. America has been the only constant in the name of this country, that is why we call ourselves Americans.
Honesly whenever someone complains about us assuming the name of the continent it just seems to me that they are complaining about it just so they have something to complain about, after all they don't really want to be called Americans, they're fine with Canadian, Mexican, Peruvian, etc.
We weren't called 'Brits' a long time before you weren't 'The Colonies'. I think the time has come for Britain to stop having to lead the way for north america and finally let it free to explore the possibility that being nice to people encourages reciprocation.
Can we stop the "brits" thing.
Not until you stop calling us "seppos". (BTW, some of us do know what that term means, you know.)
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
I say American almost anywhere in the world and what do people think?
well they hear your accent and they do not want to get in a geographical debate with you. And since you speak english they only think pretty much two choices Canada or the USA. If i hear some dude with a french accent saying he is american then I would think he is from Quebec or maybe Haiti. But then again you think you're the only ones here, and do not think about everyone else.
I did almost one year backpacking through Europe, and people would ask. Where you from?. I would say America. then they would ask me which country. My accent wasn't a U.S. accent. And they know there is 1 america not 2 like US splits it. For most of the world there are 5 continents not 7. Some countries think there are 6.
Even the olympics think there are 5 continents.
I guess you'd be the expert on that subject ...
Giving some of that "prime" 112Mhz of electromagnetic real-estate to
the Police, Fire, and Emergency response departments across this country.
Because, you know, they need it. But first, a short story.
HDTV first came to the United States partially as a ploy by the
broadcast companies in this country. Congress got together and suggested that
the public broadcast companies (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, and even WB) weren't even
making use of 1% of the UHF broadcast television spectrum, and put forth the
crazy idea that some of these businessmen give up a resource that they didn't
even have plans to use.
Of course, the industry response is predictable. They launch a
lobbying and marketing campaign at full strength; the subject, HDTV. They
get all their cronies from Japan to put together all this neat-looking fancy
broadcast equipment and flat-screen high-definition televisions. They talk
about all the capabilities, the greater services they will be able to
offer the public through this new technology.
The catch? HDTV needs more bandwidth. Oh, by the way, we suddenly
have plans to use that UHF spectrum you were talking about. All of it. The
broadcast companies basically strong-arm congress by telling them that if the
public is thinking of taking "their" excess and unused bandwidth away, then
they won't have any way to bring this new HDTV stuff into the country. And
you know how Americans are about TV, and you especially know how American
Representatives are about Big Corproate Money (of which TV has *tons*).
Congress, of course, capitulated. They did, however, tell the
broadcast companies that they had a limited about of time to make the switch.
This, of course, was all the way back in the 80's. Since then,
we've heard more and more from the broadcast regime about how cool HDTV is
going to be, and how we're already making the technology better before
we've even deployed it, and how hard it is to implement a brand-new
nation-wide television standard, and how expensive the components have to
be because this is high-def afterall.
The FCC has delivered a deadline. Rescheduled that deadline, allowed
the industry to go past that deadline, and then reschedule again. Congress,
for the most part, has been pretty much unconcerned with this whole mess.
And the American public is as uneducated and clueless as ever.
The whole reason congress got together on this issue way back in the
80s is because Police, Fire and Emergency departments were starting to feel
the crunch of their own bandwith limitations. In order to operate as
efficiently as possible, these organizations were among the first to start
using digital packet radio networks to convey data to the field. They also
have other constraints as police forces get larger, and criminals become
more sophisticated. Adding even more to these problems is the fact that
many large American Cities have many large American Buildings that make it
more difficult to get a radio signal through.
All of this became disaterously apparent on 9/11. Police and Fire
response units even a SINGLE FLOOR away from each other found it impossible
to communicate using their current radio equipment. None of the ground units
were able to coordinate with the units actually in the building. No one
standing on the ground could even tell those people risking their lives about
the buildings imminent collapse, or to provide them with information that
"Users will be able to view the material for 24 hours once they begin playback on their computers; once downloaded, the material will be stored on the user's computer for 30 days to act as a resource in the Peer Impact network, potentially hastening downloads for other nearby Peer Impact customers--"nearby" in the sense of network topography and bandwidth, not necessarily physical geography."
Like most legal video download sites out there right now, you can store it for 30 days. Once you start watching it, you have 24 hours to view it.
Movielink works this way. If you start watching it and don't finish within 24 hours or you want to watch it again a few days later, you have to pay an extra $1.99.
I pronounce it Yuu-essian in my head, although I personally never use the phrase.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Man: "Look! We finally got our digital TV!"
Woman: "Quick turn it on!"
Newreporter: "This just in! A meteor will hit the earth in 20 minutes... Machines have become sentient and are attacking humans... And the sun is collapsing into a black hole!"
Man: "Oh bloody hell!"
Woman: "I told you not to mock the Mayan statues on our honey moon!"
Man: "Mayans be damned, I've just lost my bet of 500 quid to Arthur at the pub over that Terence McKenna fellow!"
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Actually, the switchover will start in 2008 (http://www.dvb.org/index.php?id=229) and will finish in 2012. Have a look the the map of the switchover times at http://www.dtg.org.uk/consumer/switchover_map.html
:-)
BTW, I've already got digital television, as have about 66% of the rest of us Brits
Cheers,
JohnT
One area has already been switched off. A far off island in Scotland decided to go all digital.
I like muppets.
I think that actually Cuba sits partly on the Caribbean tectonic plate and is generally considered not to be part of America.
I would include Mexico as well, most of that is on the North American plate although some is Cocos plate.
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
Yes, I know who. But they are the same people who previously said the U. S. would switch over in 2006.
I think it will be very interesting to see what happens. Relatively few people with good, working TV sets are ditching them for HDTV sets. A lot of people find it hard to see why one should get rid of a perfectly good 26" TV that has a beautiful picture and cost $600 when you bought it twenty years ago, in order to buy a $2000 TV and a whole bunch of new gear to go with it.
And while you don't need to be fabulous wealthy to buy a $2,000 TV, quite a lot of middle-class families that have $2,000 to spend but have rather a lot of things to spend it on that take priority over replacing a TV that is still working.
I believe we will see at least one more cycle of pushing the deadline off as it gets close.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Secondly: "The States" is hardly a negative term either; your country is called the United States and is made up from States the last time I looked. Plus, I can't think of another country with "States" in its name. So, what's the problem?
Thirdly, the UK does stand for the United Kingdom, but the "Kindom" bit refers to the end product, not the original parts (ie, it's not the United Kindoms). In fact, Wales is a Principality and god alone knows what the Isle of Man was, while Northern Ireland is a province who's last king was sometime in the late Bronze Age. So it's a bit more subtle than it might look at first.
And finally: there's no way the US will get switched by 2009. The UK is smaller and started earlier and has had to move the date back; until the content is more alluring there's just no reason for people to change. I haven't - there isn't enough good TV to fill the five channels I've got let alone 100+.
Really finally: by 2012 TV will have changed beyond all recognition anyway and digital broadcast will be ready for phasing out. Even the BBC will be providing (or preparing to provide) all its programmes on-demand via broadband by then.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I think that "Seppo" is an Austrailian term. It's an abbreviated term for "Septic tank", which rymes with yank.
I think actually rather than jingoistic it is just plain arrogant.
You are correct you are the only country in that continent that used America in its title (that I know of). However I don't see how you can find the term "United States" abhorrently general and yet prefer America.
Russia is a state on its own; it is a member of the Confederation of Independent States (CIS) there is no mention of them being united. Perhaps this is apt given the events in Chechnya and other breakaway republics. It was formed after the end of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). A name in which the term "United States" was conspicuous by its absence.
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
I can live without television. There is hardly a show worth watching. My television sets will become monitors for my security cameras, and for my vhs/dvd's
Slashdot is not just read by americans.
I know this is a radical concept, but how about the word 'British'? I understand that, at two syllables, it's difficult for your colonial brain to handle but surely you can make the effort?
Do you really think that only US politics count ? Sheesh.
At least no more than there is now. There's not a 'switch' that will get flipped in 2009. Broadcasters will still be licensed a spectrum to operate in so they don't interfere with each other. Whether you are sending a digital or Analog TV channel, the spectrum will be licensed. For instance, let's say there's a Channel 4 on the US side of the border and a channel 5 on the Canadian side. For now, broadcasters are keeping their analog channels and adding digital on new spectrum. When channel 4 starts to broadcast digital, they will get a new spectrum (say UHF channel 49) where they will broadcast their digital signals. That one channel can equate to 6 digital extended definition 640x480 channels or 1 digital high-definition channel and I think 2 digital extended definition 640x480 channels. That channel will no more interfere with channel 5 in Canada than it would if it was analog. In 2009 if it is mandated that analog channels be discontinued, they will re-use their spectrum for channel 4. It wouldn't bleed over into Canada's analog channel 5 any more than the existing analog signal on channel 4 does today.
Official site shows phased switch off starting 2008.
One isolated village in Wales has already done this as test (they got their Set Top Boxes free).
Most areas can already get Digital TV in one form or another (Satellite or terestial).
Get the facts right please.
I am well aware of Russia's history, I was simply working from the fact that in policy discussions done in English concerning that country, the autonomous governmental unit just under the federal level, the respublik http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ rs.html , is commonly refered to here as a "state". Now this is once again a common simplification used to aid our thinking when trying to discuss the country, but it is close in its administrative concept.
I think we all just need to agree to disagree. I think "the States" is annoying but I understand your use of it. Just understand that the term America is just a conventional term for us, and when we see on the news all the people who "Hate America" that is the name which they use. And that seems to be all that our own media outlets are feeding us nowadays. Thank god for BBC online. And we can all agree that the guy who doesn't like "brit" is just weird.
I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
The Brits refer to themselves as Brits. Listen to Radio 4 or one of the "quality papers" like the Daily Mail (referring to the Daily Mail as a quality paper is meant to be ironic). How about lager lout as a replacement tag? After all, drinking and fighting is the new national past time.
We have nationalities
;-)
You're still members of the british empire and part of Great Britain, so suck it up
You don't need a new TV, your current one will work just fine. The only new thing you need is a reciever that will convert the Digital signal to Analog.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Can we stop the "brits" thing. We don't go around calling the French, Germans or Polish "Europeans" yet we still get that crappy label (which very few support) from Americans.
We have nationalities, we're not from Britianland.
???
Scroll down the list and you'll see why that particular shorthand form is used...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
an-a-logue n. a person or thing seen as comparable to another
an-a-log adj. relating to or using signals of information presented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position or voltage
Definately agree that the Brit disliking guy is very odd.
Why would someone not be proud of being called an abrieviation of an Empire that the sun never set on and now has the Falkland islands and relies on GW Bush to tell it what to do...oh wait.
BTW Got my Union Flag cuff links on again today.
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a bill with a Dec. 31, 2008 analog TV turn-off, and just a $1 billion subsidy for digital set-top-boxes ($40 coupons, two per household). This was part of H.R. 4241, "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005"
Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.
It is worth noting that there is a Japanese Slashdot run by VA Japan. While we helped them a little in their early days, they essentially run their own content without any real involvement from us... none of us can read Kanji! There are currently no plans to do other language or nation specific Slashdot sites.
Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 10/3/04
1. UK electrical retailers are still selling analogue-only TV sets - these will require a separate set-top box to be usable beyond the analogue switch-off and even then, you'll be playing the horrible "2-remote control juggle" that you currently have to (heck, neither of my 2 different digital terrestrial set-top boxes let me change the volume level using the boxes remote control !! Madness !).
2. TV sets with built-in terrestrial digital tuners (known as "IDTV"s here in the UK) still seem to be fairly scarce (and far more expensive than buying an analogue TV set and a separate set-top box instead).
And don't forget that the UK still hasn't introduced HDTV yet - it'll be coming to Sky Digital satellite next year, but there's been no announcement about it for terrestrial digital at all. The horrible thing is that we could be talking about a repeat performance a few years down the road after analogue is switched-off - people start replacing their TV sets and recorders with digital versions, only to find out that they won't work fully when HDTV is introduced.
On a slightly different vein, I think the BBC have been very clever at promoting the "buy a cheap digital set-top box for under 50 pounds" adverts (yes, they're ads really) they've been running for the past 2 years or so. It effectively enforces the licence fee because those cheap boxes do *not* have a smart card capability, so the only effective non-ad/sponsorship alternative to the licence fee (encrypted subscription, which is how I think the BBC should be funded, since you can't dodge the subs assuming the encryption isn't broken) is now virtually dead in the water thanks to the millions of non-smart card Freeview boxes in UK homes now.
The first time I went to the USA, after the plane touched down (a TWA plane, it was a while ago), the pilot gave us the usual "thank you for flying..." speech but he ended with "and for you British, welcome to the colonies".
you had to be there I guess.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
I feel sorry for you who live in the UK, especially after that ADSL disaster . I live in Iceland and we already have digital tv although we are not up to HDTV quality yet, but its better than analog for most (some people just have continuing problem with it due to all sorts of things). Digital TV has its pluses and minuses, the pluses are the picture can be much clearer, and the analog bugs are non-existant, like ghosts, static, lines and other kinds of interfierance, but the digital bugs that happen if the signal is to weak(or to strong) are far worse than the analog bug, since its usually compressed in someway the picture can become like a jig-saw puzzle for few seconds, or the picture goes just completely out for a few secs. Instead of some extra weird line in regular analog. Im not sure where im going with this so Ill end this with these words: Digital definetly is the future and is better (when it works right). --This sig has been removed because of copyright infragments
They have politics in other countries too, and the US doesn't actually exist in a vacuum. Happenings in other countries can be used to frame discussion about happenings in the US.
The uk has had digital TV since 1998. Obviously 'reading the full article' has not made it's way to Iceland yet.
I can safely say as a brit, I've never heard the word seppo in my life. Does it remove stubborn stains?
I think that "Seppo" is an Austrailian term. It's an abbreviated term for "Septic tank", which rymes with yank.
It's Cockney rhyming slang, and has since been adopted by the Ozzies. (Gee, do you think they object to that term?) What it means is: yank -> septic tank -> full of shit. It's an insult, whereas "Brit" is not meant as such.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
It certainly is. Use plenty of Finish for exquisite results!
dunno about the rest of you but ive had digital tv for several years now right here in "britain".. what dumb twat posted this?
Oh yeah, I'm a Virginian! From the Commonwealth of Virginia, ya know...Virginia used to be a corporation too...
If we're going by tectonics, than I can fairly say that Russia and China are part of Europe (except for the Indian subcontinent), since they both are on the Eurasian landmass?
And would that mean that the US can lose northern California, being that it is on the Juan de Fuca?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
You could do. I was actually talking about continents. Outside of the Eurasian plate tectonic boundaries are usually used to define what an island is and what a continent is. Hence, Australia is a continent while Greenland is referred to as an island.
Some people do refer to Eurasia as a continent, giving them 6 major continents: Antarctica, South America, North America, Eurasia, Africa and Australia. Others prefer their 6 to be Antarctica, America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. Either definition proves my main point that calling the USA "America" is misleading as it is only a section of one of these continents. It is a bit like them saying they should be referred to as "Earth" because they take up some of it.
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
Maybe somebody should set up a British Slashdot...we could call it SlashBlair.
And what is worse, we get out Digital TV from the bloody WELSH...
There's no justice!
(And if I see Pobl Y Cwm once more, I'll SCREAM!)
Quite apart from its natural appeal to luddites, there are actually valid technical reasons to consider analog tv superior to digital tv at least in terms of its generally much greater robustness to weak reception conditions; the picture quality of analog tv, compared to that of digital tv, degrades much more gracefully over more than an order-of-magnitude larger range of received signal strength and for various types of interference. The picture quality of digital tv is generally almost perfect only within a limited range of received signal strength, and, below the lower limit of that range, the picture quality falls very rapidly to zero, which is obviously useless to the viewer. The picture quality of analog tv gets gradually and progressively worse as the received signal strength decreases, and there is still a viewable picture -- albeit degraded -- even far beyond the level at which digital tv totally fails to be able to produce any picture. A second problem with digital tv is that it is considerably more vulnerable to the effects of impulsive noise from electrical storms, poorly suppressed motors etc, recognisable by the times when the picture "freezes" for a few moments which can be very irritating when it happens e.g. during a live sports match. For the same average total energy of impulsive noise, an analog tv picture generally gets a number of isolated white speckles, which are not really distracting because they are tiny and have no consistent position. Digital tv is more spectrum efficient than analog tv but only at the cost of its much lower robustness to poor reception conditions.
Scroogle
Jokes on them:
Super secret cheat code #1: Change your system's date and time
Instead of spending money in something that is supposed to be born dead like digital TV, we could foucs our attention and money in giving broadband Internet a big push.
TVoIP is the real digital TV and is already here: so why investing in a duplicate?
Other countries in Europe have tried the same with a lot of money wasted and very little success!
By the way, I live on the other side of the Channel.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
The problem with IDTVs is that there are too many local standards.
An IDTV set that can be sold in more than one country and/or would need to receive more than one provider will be more complex than a simple FTA set.
You will have to cater for terrestrial, cable and satellite modes of DVB, plus the different encryption systems.
It seems easier to sell a generic TV (with or without analog tuner) and a separate box that is catered to the needs of the locality and preferences of the user.
Still, it would be nice if there were some remote control standard so everything could be controlled from one remote.
That would be the US. U.S. is incorrect English. :)
There are many DVB set-top boxes on the market with a built-in RF modulator. "Plugging in a box" to a TV set without a Scart socket (or even a black and white tv) shouldn't be a problem at all, if you just make sure that you will buy a box with an RF modulator.
Correct on all accounts. Digital television in Europe means "SDTV resolution, broadcast digitally" - not HDTV. The highest resolution you can currently get is 720×576 (which can be interpreted either as a 4:3 picture or as a 16:9 picture, depending on the aspect ratio flags broadcast within the video stream.) That's all that is broadcast today and, more importantly, all that the current DVB receivers on the market are capable of decoding.
Having the DVB infrastructure laid out all over the country means that it will become possible to start HDTV broadcasts at some later date in the future (without changing the actual broadcast technology but just the type of bitstream that is being broadcast), but if (when) that happens, the viewer will need a new set-top-box with a more powerful MPEG decoder and HD video outputs. Those with a DVB receiver card in their PCs should be fine, though.
As of now, there is only a single satellite channel in Europe that broadcasts in HD, and you will need to buy a special STB to watch their broadcasts. Their current broadcast format is MPEG-2, but they are going to switch to MPEG-4 later. It remains to be seen how HD will be broadcast in Europe in the future, but chances are that the format won't be MPEG-2 when HDTV actually starts gaining some foothold here.
VHS VCRs are being phased out anyway, due to the emergence of HDD-based video recorders with a built-in DVB tuner/decoder.
That being said, "programmatic recording" is not ruined. Most VCRs sold in Europe have long had an externally controlled recording capability. That is, the VCR can be directly controlled by the timer in the DVB set-top-box: the STB can instruct the VCR to start or stop recording via a Scart cable. Different VCR manufacturers have used different names for this capability - such as Sat Record, External Link, or Rec Link - but you can usually find it by reading the manual.