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."
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
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.
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.
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.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
What exactly are the benefits of digital TV anyway?
More channels in the same bandwidth, higher resolution, less interference.
And unfortunately, compression. I've ranted about this before.
Maybe HDTV will be good enough to make this moot, but I have had enough bad experiences with regular digital TV (as it is now supplied on some cable channels) to envy the UK's decision to wait until 2012.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Cable is not a safe haven for analog viewers...
Here in the Netherlands cable companies are quickly converting everything to digital.
All analog channels are available in digital as well, plus some extras, "for free" (= within the analog subscription price).
Premium channels will be switched off in analog coming jan 1st, and cable companies offer free decoders (normal price about 100 euro) to anyone subscribing to an extra package.
My guess is that by this time next year they will be stating that "many viewers apparently prefer digital" and start switching off analog channels to make room for more digital programmes, to generate extra revenue from optional packages.
Since when has Rome been in Northern Ireland?
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
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
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
Don't bet on it.
The extra frequencies are earmarked for sale to the mobile phone companies - that's why the government is pushing so hard for digital.. it'll make millions selling off the unused space.
*if* any frequencies become available in 2012 for TV, then there'll be a bunfight between the BBC who'll probably want to start an HDTV channel (1 or 2 per frequency), and the commercial broadcasters (8 channels per frequency). 8*cash > 2*cash... follow the money...
Speaking as one who has the UK's analogue, Freeview (digitial terestial) and Sky (digital satalite) here's my experiences of the different options.
/doing/ something, but at least teletext doesn't seem to crash out, returning out to the program with at least 20 keypresses (press your RED button now!) to get back to the same place.
As a caveat, my analogue signal is perfect, as far as I can tell. I never have a problem with ghosting, snowy picture or anything else no matter the conditions.
With Freeview, certain blocks of channels dissapear if it's foggy, raining, too warm or too windy - depending on the conditions I might loose all the bbc channels, or all the itv channels (no real loss there) or any other 'block' ( i believe the spectrum is devided up into about 5 or six blocks in which the channels are broadcast).
With Satalite, it's usualy rain that gets it, if it's pissing it down outside our sky reception just fails: blue-screen and no sound. That's with a dish that is just pointed at sky, no trees or anything similar in between it and the satalite.
I'd say that with all said and done I'd rather have the Analogue signal over either digital option. I prefer gradual degredation to the working / not digital approach.
Quality-wise, even when both digital options are working to their best extent, simply watch a football match and just see the pixelation and artifacts appear. Even a snowy/ghosting analogue picture beats the crap out of ITV or Five showing a football match, especially if the weather is a bit odd (see above)
Even the interactive elements (reading news stories etc) seem very slow and poor in comparison with simple teletext. I realise it's probably the rotating number giving me an impression that it's at least
But we're getting more choice! That's what we're told. More choice is better for us. Despite the choise on freeview being the same 5 channles you get on analogue + a load of shopping channels, or on sky it being 400 channels of absolute shite (see shopping channels, music etc). Quality seems to go out the window when 'choice' is increased.
Er, I'm not a digitial-tv luddite at all really, I just wish they'd concentrate on quality image, sound and content over offering more and more increasingly banal channels.
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.