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."

Comments

Inaccurate headline

[Bogtha]

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.

Re:There's probably no mention of subsidizing

[taskforce]

Actually no, the UK government doesn't own TV any more than the US Governemnt does. The BBC (by no means the only broadcaster in the UK) recieves a liscence fee from the public who have a TV. This fee is only charged if you have a television (In theory, although they often have a hard time believing you don't have one if you actually don't) and the money is never seen by the governemnt. It is not paid for with taxes.

In addition, the BBC wouldn't actually be the ones paying for the switchover, so the liscence fee is in fact a mute point here.

The subsidisation in the US is supposed to be on Digital enabled TV sets for consumers; which the governemnt certainly don't "own" in the UK.

Re:damn it

[taskforce]

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.

Several things

[jfengel]

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.

Re:How about..

[TheSync]

This is totally BS. Spectrum is wasted in analog TV because analog NTSC TV has tremendous problems with interference between adjancent channels and same channels in neighboring markets. Digital ATSC is less vulnerable to these kinds of interference, and more channels can be packed tighter, reducing overall spectrum needs.

Also there is absolutely no shortage of spectrum for "first responders." There were communications problems on 9/11, but they had to do with systems that were not tested properly, not interoperational between police and fire, not operational (like a repeater that wasn't turned on), and human error during a trying time. RF bandwidth was not an issue.

Digital ATSC takes up the same bandwidth as analog NTSC, 6 MHz, although channels can be packed tighter on the dial. The 6 MHz provides about 19 Mbps using 8-VSB modulation, and those 19 Mbps can deliver a single-program MPEG2 transport stream, or a multi-program one, including mixes of high definition and standard definition resolution programs, or even multicast IP encapsulated in MPEG2 transport packets.

For example, one school system uses their ATSC transmission to provide 4 SD program channels and deliver IP video-on-demand to classrooms.

Now I won't argue that people are not making money on the digital transition, but they sure are not broadcasters. Right now, digital is a money hole for broadcasters, with their money going to transmitter manufacturers, MPEG transport stream server and multiplexer companies, HD camera and master control switching companies, HD editing software companies, and the consumer money is flowing to HD set manufacturers.