Almost a Million UK Homes Will Suffer 4G TV interference

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Almost a Million UK Homes Will Suffer 4G TV interference

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @05:35PM from the clear-the-channel dept.

First time accepted submitter Nick Fel writes "As the UK nears the end of a lengthy digital TV switch-over, the sale of the analogue TV spectrum for 4G mobile phones will disrupt digital TV in almost a million homes. Affected homes will be issued with a filter or required to upgrade to satellite or cable, and in extreme cases may be granted funding to find their own solution."

166 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

"extreme cases" by mug+funky · 2012-02-22 17:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

extreme? a set top box costs the same as a DVD disc these days.
1. Re:"extreme cases" by jaymz666 · 2012-02-22 17:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  a dvd disc? from the atm machine?
2. Re:"extreme cases" by kimvette · 2012-02-22 17:41 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, which will prompt you for your PIN number of course.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
3. Re:"extreme cases" by philip.paradis · 2012-02-22 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, the kind that has an LCD display and requires a PIN number before performing account functions.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
4. Re:"extreme cases" by exomondo · 2012-02-22 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  And of course on the way you had to stop and fill up with LPG gas.
5. Re:"extreme cases" by mcavic · 2012-02-22 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  We should all help stamp out and abolish redundancy and repetition.
6. Re:"extreme cases" by mug+funky · 2012-02-22 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  well, i see your point, but i said that to distinguish from DVD players, as a band-aid solution to my poor sentence composition.
  i author DVDs for a living, so i'm allowed to be grammatically fast 'n loose with them i guess :)
7. Re:"extreme cases" by jwijnands · 2012-02-22 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps in your country, not in most of Europe.
8. Re:"extreme cases" by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-22 20:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  A set top box costs about the same as a DVD *player*, which frequently costs less than the discs you put in it.
  My local Tesco has STBs and DVD players for about Â£15 each. They're crap but they work. If you *really* want to throw money at the problem you can get a dual-tuner DVR with DVD and 320GB hard disk for about 50 quid.
9. Re:"extreme cases" by 91degrees · 2012-02-22 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  You can get them for Â£20 from a supermarket. Okay - pretty expensive for a DVD but we're not talking major investment here.
10. Re:"extreme cases" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 20:43 · Score: 0
  
  I'm guessing this is for people living within 10 feet of the 4G mast in rural areas where the signal swamps the digital TV signal so a set top box isn't an option and where they're not in a area where they can receive cable. Can't see them not being able to go the satellite route, but if it's their only option then perhaps it's fair that their subscription gets subsidised by the 4G mast owners.
11. Re:"extreme cases" by Suferick · 2012-02-22 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that the D in LCD stands for 'Diode' not 'Display', don't you?
12. Re:"extreme cases" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  yes - because redundancy and repetition need stamping out and abolishing...
13. Re:"extreme cases" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  No it doesn't. There's no such thing as a liquid crystal diode. You're thinking of LED.
14. Re:"extreme cases" by alannon · 2012-02-22 21:44 · Score: 2
  
  You should probably have checked that before posting... Are you confusing LCD with LED?
15. Re:"extreme cases" by philip.paradis · 2012-02-22 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, it doesn't.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
16. Re:"extreme cases" by rich_hudds · 2012-02-22 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  No it doesn't, it stands for display
17. Re:"extreme cases" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'm guessing this is for people living within 10 feet of the 4G mast in rural areas where the signal swamps the digital TV signal so a set top box isn't an option and where they're not in a area where they can receive cable. Can't see them not being able to go the satellite route, but if it's their only option then perhaps it's fair that their subscription gets subsidised by the 4G mast owners.
  Or they could go the Freesat route, subscription free TV down a satellite dish.
18. Re:"extreme cases" by Suferick · 2012-02-23 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Quite right, so I am. My bad. It's been a tough day
19. Re:"extreme cases" by Dark$ide · 2012-02-23 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  extreme? a set top box costs the same as a DVD disc these days.
  And how does that solve the problem?
  We don't have nationwide cable TV. In my town (100,000 folks live here) the northern half of the town has cable, the southern half (where I live) doesn't, my POTS circuit is aluminium cable from the BT distribution cabinet (it's now using fibre to the cabinet). We're still relying on ground based DVB-T signals to get the free-to-air public service broadcasting TV. If we choose to pay our hard earned to Rupert Murdoch's sleazy SKY/Fox/News International empire we can have a satellite dish and his pay-TV services. There are some free-to-air services on Freesat.
  
  --
  Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
20. Re:"extreme cases" by scottme · 2012-02-23 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Mate, there's nothing but FTA services on Freesat!
  It's available nationwide, is easily as good as Freeview, and has HD channels. What's not to like about it?
Gee, I wonder why there'd be interference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 17:43 · Score: 1

"The LTE [Long Term Evolution] spectrum, particularly on 800Mhz, overlaps part of the DTT spectrum," he said.
Really? by philip.paradis · 2012-02-22 17:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

From TFA: 'Homes that cannot receive these alternative platforms will receive up to £10,000 each to "find a solution".'
Really? £10,000? Is television so critical that people will die without it? At today's exchange rates, that USD $15,760. Wow.

--
Write failed: Broken pipe
1. Re:Really? by SydShamino · 2012-02-22 17:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Keep in mind that A) British people pay for their broadcast TV, so the government will presumably recoup this expense, and B) British people seem to really love their TV, from how much they're willing to invest in making it good.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
2. Re:Really? by MurukeshM · 2012-02-22 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  Really? £10,000? Is television so critical that people will die without it? At today's exchange rates, that USD $15,760. Wow.
  Well, these people had something, and then will lose it due to no fault of thiers. Assuming you're in the US, how much do you think a class-action lawsuit would have netted against the companies that are bringing out 4G? Upto 10,000 (maybe the average would be a lot less) may seem a bit too much, but they're getting this without going for a lawsuit. A normal, not class-action, lawsuit could have netted more.
3. Re:Really? by Poltron+Inconnu · 2012-02-22 17:54 · Score: 2
  
  I believe in the UK they pay an annual license fee to watch tv broadcasts. So even though it's not 'critical', they'd better make sure they're providing the service. And if they've done something to disrupt that service themselves, they need to go to extreme lengths to fix it where needed. Oh, and television serves as an emergency notification system. So yes, some people might die without it.
4. Re:Really? by jrmcferren · 2012-02-22 17:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The government isn't paying for this stuff, it is being paid for by the mobile phone companies.
  
  --
  sudo mod me up
5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 18:04 · Score: 0
  
  I must be officially an old-timer... does no one remember Max Headroom? 20 minutes into the future, where everyone had TVs given to them by the state (corps, no difference) as a basic right? And off-switches were punishable by 20 years?
6. Re:Really? by Lincolnshire+Poacher · 2012-02-22 18:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The government isn't paying for this stuff, it is being paid for by the mobile phone companies.
  True, the money is dues to be sourced from the winning bid for the 4G licenses, but the money is flowing into the Government coffers and being redirected into this effort. It is therefore money unavailable for other, more worthy, projects.
  My solution: the Government should tell TV Licensing to refund the license fee payments to those affected and tell the individuals to listen to the radio if they desperately need stale news reports on the hour.
  Meanwhile, funnel that money into Internet access projects for rural areas.
7. Re:Really? by Bert64 · 2012-02-22 19:08 · Score: 2
  
  Even if you are in such an area where you are unable to receive tv, im sure you will still get tv licensing hassling you constantly for not having a license...
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
8. Re:Really? by Hadlock · 2012-02-22 19:32 · Score: 2
  
  Britons are required by law to pay a "TV licence" every year, which is about $100, IIRC.
  
  In the states, FCC law overrides homeowner's association ironclad rules about mounting TV antennas on your roof. I suspect for most people the cost reimbursement would be around $200 for a single household, while high rise condominiums might be eligible for $10,000 to refit the entire building. Many buildings in London are three story residences, so you could be looking at $600-1200 to service a building that has three units.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
9. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 19:36 · Score: 0
  
  Meanwhile, funnel that money into Internet access projects for rural areas.
  As usual, the /. summary doesn't give the real picture.
  From TFA:
  
  In these cases, expected to be in rural areas, up to 310,000 per household will be provided to fund alternative solutions to receiving television - such as having fibre cabling installed.
  Not sure why you can't have Internet and TV going over your "fibre cabling", but maybe it's a cheap form of "fibre cabling" that filters propaganda.
10. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 19:41 · Score: 0
  
  It's closer to $200 and is only required for watching broadcast programmes.
11. Re:Really? by Inda · 2012-02-22 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yes.
  
  I quote
  
  "Poor television reception
  
  Your TV Licence does not guarantee the quality of picture you receive."
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
12. Re:Really? by nogginthenog · 2012-02-22 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's more like $230. Worth it though IMHO.
13. Re:Really? by Richard_at_work · 2012-02-22 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's not being sourced from the winning bid, it's a requirement that the winning bidder cover the costs over and above their winning bid - no government money is being diverted.
14. Re:Really? by Alphathon · 2012-02-22 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  While I'm not sure I agree about it being government money, your comment about internet access opens another option beyond the standard DVB systems - the internet. We already have BBC iPlayer, ITV/UTV/STV player, 4oD and demand Five, as well as services such as tvcatchup.com (more info here), so upgrading users' internet (and possibly proving a low-end HTPC for access) may well be the most financially viable solution.
15. Re:Really? by AmiMoJo · 2012-02-22 20:30 · Score: 2
  
  Seems reasonable. If companies want 4G spectrum and it is going to cause problems for people then they should fix those problems. 10k isn't much to them, keep in mind they are paying billions for the spectrum alone and will then have to invest in equipment and infrastructure.
  We have the concept of restorative justice in the UK. You break something, you pay to fix it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
16. Re:Really? by Grishnakh · 2012-02-22 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  I think this idea of TV as an emergency notification system is quite ridiculous; after all, who leaves their TV on at all hours just in case there's an emergency? If someone only has their TV on for an hour or two per day, the likelihood of them seeing the emergency broadcast is rather low. Maybe they should just use cellular text messaging to distribute emergency broadcasts; at least that way almost everyone will actually get them (everyone who has a cellphone at least, which is most of the population these days), and will probably see them fairly quickly.
17. Re:Really? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-22 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  Alternatively, could I purchase a house in one of these areas and not have a TV license for a valid reason? I haven't watched TV for some years now; If I had a TV, it would be for a media centre PC or games console. As it is, I just have a big PC monitor for DVDs etc :)
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
18. Re:Really? by Tim+C · 2012-02-22 20:44 · Score: 2
  
  Of course not, it's a licence to own and operate equipment capable of receiving television broadcasts, not a guarantee of service. In a similar (but otherwise unrelated) vein, a train ticket guarantees you carriage (unless you miss the train, of course) but doesn't guarantee you a seat.
  
  I have a friend who doesn't even own a TV, she is occasionally hassled by TV Licensing. I understand it's annoying, but given that you need a licence to own a TV, and the number of people who don't own a TV is vanishingly small compared to the number that do, and is also almost certainly dwarfed by the number that do but don't have a licence, it's understandable they may be sceptical.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
19. Re:Really? by HopefulIntern · 2012-02-22 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  If the signal is so poor that you cannot actually receive anything of substance, you don't have to pay. When I bought a TV, the vendor notified TV Licensing that my household was getting a TV. Subsequently they sent letter after letter saying to pay up, but there was no way for me to tell them "I cannot get TV signal", so they finally sent a guy round. He just looked at the static, wrote on his clipboard and left. That was 2 years ago, haven't heard from them since.
20. Re:Really? by Poltron+Inconnu · 2012-02-22 20:58 · Score: 2
  
  More methods of emergency notification are likely to the good. Cell texting of emergency notices is good and my girlfriend's college does just that. However, claiming that TV is a ridiculous notification system because people turn it off is, well, a bit ridiculous. Aside from there being many people who do have their TV on for long periods of time either actively watching or for background noise, many people will turn to TV to find out how serious a situation is. My mother still calls me from several states over to tell me there is bad weather in my area so turn on the TV to find out if I need to take precautions. New ideas are good, but I don't think it serves the good to dismiss what's in place and known.
21. Re:Really? by St.Creed · 2012-02-22 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  I used to be in the same situation. Never had much use for a TV on my own. But after a while the problem was gone because the government said: "hey, if the number of ppl who don't own a tv is so small as to be negligible compared to people who do, why not just remove all the administrative nonsense and just increase tax by 1 euro per year?". So they increased the taxes slightly, and the whole licensing thing went away. And since the administrative overhead went away as well, it was a pretty nice way to save almost everyone some money.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
22. Re:Really? by itsdapead · 2012-02-22 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA: 'Homes that cannot receive these alternative platforms will receive up to £10,000 each to "find a solution".'
  Really? £10,000? Is television so critical that people will die without it? At today's exchange rates, that USD $15,760. Wow.
  The Government is looking to make a metric shedload of money by auctioning off what used to be the analog TV frequencies. Of course they should take steps to ensure that nobody loses out as a result. People have recently paid for DTT boxes and, sometimes, arial upgrades as part of the digital switchover (and theyve had up to a decade to do that) - so this new 4g interference is really a bit of a cockup, and the government has to sweeten it..
  These £10k cases are houses that will lose terrestrial digital TV and for whatever reason, cant simply sign up to cable or satellite. Its likely that the money from several affected houses will be pooled in order to run new cable to the community or build a relay transmitter - I doubt many households will be getting a £10k windfall. Most will be getting a few bucks worth of filter.
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
23. Re:Really? by Spad · 2012-02-22 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  The government doesn't get to see any of the TV licencing money; the BBC isn't government funded, it's publically funded.
24. Re:Really? by Kjella · 2012-02-22 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile, funnel that money into Internet access projects for rural areas.
  Well, the alternatives listed are cable, satellite and fiber - at least two out of those three always means Internet access these days so in practice it would be.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
25. Re:Really? by sqldr · 2012-02-22 22:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A couple of years ago they built the Canary Wharf Tower in London. Out of Aluminium. I was one of the people in a straight line from the transmitter through the tower who one day couldn't pick up jack squat. No cable in the area either. And the majority of building associations responsible for the flats in the area wouldn't give permission for anyone in the blocks to set up satellite dishes.
  The court case went on for years. The BBC built a repeater which didn't work. Everyone lost a lot of money.
  In fact, I've moved to a different area and had years of uninterrupted TV until they built the fucking Shard tower and it's happened again. Now I just watch iplayer.
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
26. Re:Really? by djsmiley · 2012-02-22 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you can make the case that you don't use / have an aerial and so can't recieve TV on your television. Have fun convincing them of this fact tho.
  Oh and you'd then legally be obliged not to watch any live TV via other devices (xbox, ps3, iplayer etc - though I don't actually recall ever seeing live tv on any of these devices.)
  
  --
  - http://www.milkme.co.uk
27. Re:Really? by djsmiley · 2012-02-22 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  Because people turn their phones off?
  Oh wait, that was your arguement against TV.
  More people have TV's than Phones?
  
  --
  - http://www.milkme.co.uk
28. Re:Really? by djsmiley · 2012-02-22 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  For the person living in said rented apartment currently the cost of refund might be that yes.
  But try renting out a flat with no TV reception and suddenly you looking at a loss of earnings for the next 5-10-30 years while they "update the technology".
  
  --
  - http://www.milkme.co.uk
29. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 22:54 · Score: 0
  
  TV is also an essential service for weather and disaster related information.
30. Re:Really? by LordSnooty · 2012-02-22 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather not have the government deciding on a whim to cut BBC funding from general taxation, perhaps to punish it for attacking the government (see Hutton inquiry). The present system, where funding levels are decided 5 or 10 years in advance and cannot be changed by the government, works very well. Though I accept that in about four years' time when the Royal Charter is up for renewal again - and the funding for future years will be set - the chance of the licence fee continuing are very slim.
  
  I often hear that British TV is the best in the world and if that's the case it's entirely down to the BBC's system of funding which relieves it from commercial and political pressures and allows them to experiment with programmes that might not be a success. Also the BBC's creative freedom has forced the commercial operators to up their game and consider similar risks. Non-Brits might find the licence fee a crazy system but it works. For British TV to fall into the commercial profit-driven LCD style of other countries would be the biggest cultural disaster to hit this country.
31. Re:Really? by MoonBuggy · 2012-02-22 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  I really don't see the issue people have with this - maybe I was lucky, and it certainly felt a little bit big-brotherish when I got a letter out of the blue saying "We see you've just bought a new TV, now you need a license." but it took all of ten minutes to call and explain that it was just for gaming/internet streaming, and that was that.
32. Re:Really? by LordSnooty · 2012-02-22 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't watch TV as it is broadcast then you don't have to pay the licence fee no matter where you live. Yes this covers iplayer, as long as the viewing is not at the same time as the TV broadcast. Morally it might be wrong to consume BBC services without paying but legally one is able to. Detune your TV and ask them to visit your home.
33. Re:Really? by MoonBuggy · 2012-02-22 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  ...given that you need a licence to own a TV...
  Not entirely correct - you need a license to watch or record TV in real time as it is being broadcast. A subtle distinction, but it means that the fact my Xbox display happens to have a tuner doesn't leave me liable for one (it's not even plugged into an aerial), whereas watching a live stream from iPlayer (if you really couldn't wait an hour until it's posted as a recording) on your laptop would require you to pay.
  As I mentioned further down, they weren't even particularly sceptical when I called - I get the impression it's becoming more and more common to stick with streaming media specifically to avoid the fee. To be honest I can see the law changing in some manner to include all iPlayer use in the not too distant future; I'm getting almost the full benefit of the BBC services, legally, without paying - I imagine that can't last, and realistically I don't think I'd even be that upset if it did change. I like the BBC.
34. Re:Really? by MoonBuggy · 2012-02-22 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think the issue's more straightforward even than that. The government is allowing phone companies to bid on new spectrum, it's going to be a transaction worth billions; one of the caveats is that if people have their TV signals fucked up, through no fault of their own, then some of that money can damn well go to fixing it. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
  £10k is just the edge case upper limit to ensure that they don't get roped into running undersea fibre to some remote island in the Hebrides or anything like that.
35. Re:Really? by SuricouRaven · 2012-02-22 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently so. Both the US and UK governments have spent a lot of money making sure that people can still watch TV, both through advertising and by directly distributing converter boxes or subsidising new TVs. Perhaps they have realised how truely essential television is to modern society: Not only does it keep the people pacified, but it also delivers the advertising that feeds the spending that sustains the economy. If TV were to disappear, we might very well see a second great depression follow.
36. Re:Really? by desertfool · 2012-02-23 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  I wish we could get the real BBC channels here in the States. BBC America runs too many re-runs of Star Trek NG and old American TV shows. Every once in a while they run some of the good British stuff. Heck, I would even pay a little more to get the BBC Channels.
  
  --
  Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
37. Re:Really? by ciderbrew · 2012-02-23 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't aware that you didn't need to pay for a license for streaming. I don't have a TV; but I did get a license for iplayer. To be honest, I don't begrudge them a penny. Iplayer is great I wish they had more old content on line to watch. I'll pay next year.
38. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  I'd rather the BBC was a subscription service like Sky. Then I could choose not to pa, or receive, their shite blend of middle class dross sitcoms and piss poor propoganda "news".
  There's no goverment mandate forcing me to buy Heinz beans (whether I eat them or not) so why should I be taxed to receive something I DO NOT WANT.
  .
39. Re:Really? by Captain+Hook · 2012-02-23 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is that iPlayer doesn't stream live content for precisely this reason. If they did, anyone who watched it would require a TV License which they have no reliable way of enforcing.
  
  Personally I think the License Fees days are number, maybe not the next review, prehaps the one after that, because the number of ways of accessing the data is expanding so much that it becomes impossible to police.
  
  I was really surprised how easy it was when I canceled my license so I guess licenseless homes are becoming more common. Although I did cancel when the Analogue signal in my area was turned off so maybe they were just expecting a lot of cancellations at that time.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
40. Re:Really? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-23 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  iPlayer does stream live content. Pick a channel on the left hand side at http://bbc.co.uk/iplayer and you'll see the very top of the list is marked "Watch Live". You need a TV license to watch live streamed TV via iPlayer as stated at http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence.
  
  I don't watch live shows on iPlayer; I only every use it because the shows I want to watch are on at inconvenient times.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
41. Re:Really? by Captain+Hook · 2012-02-23 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, that wasn't the case when I last looked into it.
  
  When I dumped the TV, I figured the few shows that I might miss I could watch on the various catch up services but in fact, once I stopped watching on TV I lost interest in those shows and haven't missed any of the shows.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
42. Re:Really? by operagost · 2012-02-23 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Understandable they may be skeptical, but not that they hassle her for it.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
43. Re:Really? by operagost · 2012-02-23 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I often hear that British TV is the best in the world and if that's the case it's entirely down to the BBC's system of funding which relieves it from commercial and political pressures
  
  You mean there aren't any lobbyists from the BBC trying to get the TV licence fees raised?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
44. Re:Really? by Grishnakh · 2012-02-23 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about you, but I almost never turn my phone off (airplanes and theaters usually, and I turn it back on immediately afterwards). But I don't spend much time watching TV and can go several days without turning it on.
  As for more people having TVs than phones, I call bullshit on that one. Cellphones are so popular now that landlines are threatened with extinction, and more and more people are doing their TV-watching either on the internet (Netflix, Hulu) or just using their DVR, which doesn't show live TV. Face it, watching TV programs in a pre-selected timeslot when a broadcaster wants you to watch them, without being able to pause or rewind, is quickly becoming a thing of the past (and got that way ~10 years ago with the introduction of TiVo).
  What good is an emergency notification system that only some old people and TV addicts ever see? I say that as a middle-aged person; it's not just young people who've abandoned the practice of watching TV the old-fashioned way.
45. Re:Really? by tlhIngan · 2012-02-23 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I think the License Fees days are number, maybe not the next review, prehaps the one after that, because the number of ways of accessing the data is expanding so much that it becomes impossible to police.
  I was really surprised how easy it was when I canceled my license so I guess licenseless homes are becoming more common. Although I did cancel when the Analogue signal in my area was turned off so maybe they were just expecting a lot of cancellations at that time.
  I'm under the understanding that the BBC is funded by this, so the government is simply allowing the BBC to wither on the vine, so more "reputable" broadcasters like Sky and whatever Rupert Murdoch owns can present proper "un"biased news and insightful TV programming without having to compete against the heavily biased and uninstructive BBC. You know, bring TV back to its American roots.
  The BBC makes life hard on everyone - competing TV stations, politicians, corporate interests and many other things.
  (and yes, I'm jesting.)
46. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  I often hear that British TV is the best in the world and if that's the case it's entirely down to the BBC's system of funding which relieves it from commercial and political pressures
  You mean there aren't any lobbyists from the BBC trying to get the TV licence fees raised?
  If there are then they are not doing a good job. Ive just had my licence renewal in the post. Its valid for the next 5 years (rather than just for 1 year) because the fee is now fixed therefore there was no point in them sending out 5 letters when 1 would do.
47. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  If you go to a brick 'n' mortar shop and buy a TV in the UK, they will ask you for your postcode so that it is passed onto TV Licensing.
  http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=330950
48. Re:Really? by EdZ · 2012-02-23 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  You need a license for live streaming from iplayer. If you solely watch recorded shows, then you do not need a TV license.
49. Re:Really? by pbhj · 2012-02-23 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  The government already funds the BBC [yes, of course, in part] from general taxation and so can currently vary the funding to the BBC on their collective political whim.
  The BBC are supposed to be [in part] about choice but they go and replicate what the other OTA free to view channels carry and have ratings wars with them. Why is it about ratings? Why not about quality alternatives? Basically the BBC think they're a commercial enterprise with their output and positioning but never approach being commercial with their funding and ludicrously high wages to "stars". To say they're not politically biased is to lie. But they usually rein it in.
  Surely the government can change anything they like as long as HM The Queen signs the bill.
50. Re:Really? by pbhj · 2012-02-23 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  >*given that you need a licence to own a TV,* //
  You got it right in the first line - you don't need a license to own a TV. You need a license to operate equipment that is capable of receiving broadcasts. You can own a TV but not have an aerial (or other means) and choose to watch content delivered, for example, on DVD or via a media box.
  You're even allowed to watch iPlayer without having to have a license so long as you don't "watch live".
51. Re:Really? by pbhj · 2012-02-23 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  >*I wish they had more old content on line to watch* //
  This I do not understand. They can clearly easily put content up online, but then broadcast shows of their own should just stay available perpetually.
  [rant]
  Then of course you hit the cronyism whereby instead of the BBC creating shows now they license the content from people working [now indirectly] for them effectively paying twice to get what they could have gotten before and coming away worse off in having restricted licenses. Case in point is something like Gardeners Question Time - long time BBC show, or so you'd think, it's a simple panel show where the public come and ask 4-5 experts questions and it all gets recorded for radio ... you'd think BBC would have the skills and infrastructure to do something like this cheaper than anyone. Indeed I'm pretty sure they do. But instead they pay a production company to produce it (at what has to be higher cost, so they can make their profit) and then the BBC can't do what they like with the content because they only buy the rights to air the show and make it available for a small period (at remember a profit added cost over producing it and having full rights). According to Wikipedia the production company only came in on things in 2009. Are BBC incompetent to create such a simple show (for which they must even own the name) or are they paying money for something they shouldn't be.
  [/rant]
52. Re:Really? by tfountain · 2012-02-23 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  No cable in the area? 'The area' being the middle of London?
53. Re:Really? by sqldr · 2012-02-23 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  London cable is more a higgledy-piggledy problem than just distance from the exchange. You get situtation where your neighbours can get it and you can't. Even if the cableco can technically get a cable to your flat, the building association which runs the building may not allow it.
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
54. Re:Really? by ciderbrew · 2012-02-24 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's a fair rant. I'm sure the answer is a very bureaucratic reason.
55. Re:Really? by GuB-42 · 2012-02-24 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe for the deaf. For everyone else, there is the radio.
Extreme means CABLE does not work by SuperKendall · 2012-02-22 17:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

extreme? a set top box costs the same as a DVD disc these days.
RTFA.
These are cases where "cable and satellite WILL NOT WORK." As in, you are right next to the tower which is overpowering incoming signals.
The 10k is to install a fiber-optic based solution to the residence.
Would that even work though? If the interference is that high just the run from the fiber box to the TV could pick up interference!
Not to mention, although I'm not one to care about evil WiFi rays passing through my body, living in a place with too much em to get a cable signal would give me pause.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 18:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The 10k is for residents who get interference but can not use cable or satellite. Lets say you live in a sparsely populated area next to a freeway the cable company may not service you and you may have trees that interfere with satellite. There's no way the interference will be enough to jam a wired connection.
2. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by mug+funky · 2012-02-22 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  they can just download the shows :)
3. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Alphathon · 2012-02-22 19:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  As far as I am aware the only "cable company" over here is Virgin Media, who only service a limited area of the country (apparently it's available to 65% of households), most of which is confined to cities (and often there are areas of those cities where it is unavailable too). (Map of coverage) It's not even available in every city; I'm pretty sure that its not available anywhere in Aberdeen, which is the 27th most populous city in the UK (population ~200k), and I doubt its alone. Being in a sparely populated area and next to a motorway (the closest thing we have to freeways) is certainly not the only reason for not having cable access.
  Satellite coverage on the other hand is pretty much 100%, line-of-sight issues notwithstanding. Trees aren't the only issues though. If someone lives in rented accommodation they may not be allowed to put up a dish, and even if they own it they may not have a south-east-facing area to mount a dish.
  Certainly, I doubt there will be (m)any households that can't get satellite signals because of the LTE transmission, since satellite is transmitted at ~10-12 GHz while LTE is transmitted at 800, 1800 and 2600 MHz in Europe. Sure, the signal sent through the coax cable is within that range at ~970 MHz - 2 GHz, but if the LTE is strong enough to interfere with the cabling, fibre-optic connections are available and would likely be cheaper than getting fibre-optic cable TV installed in any of the non-covered areas.
4. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-22 20:04 · Score: 2
  
  It's not hard to get around trees.
  Furthermore, in quite a bit of the UK there is no real terrestrial coverage - much of the north of Scotland has no terrestrial digital and isn't ever likely to have it. We've used digital satellite for years, because even the analogue terrestrial service was extremely poor. I used to have two stacked 24-element industrial spec Yagis aimed at the nearest transmitter, with two signal boosters to drive the 300m of coax back to the house. It would probably have been cheaper to move the house 300m to where the signal was...
5. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by AmiMoJo · 2012-02-22 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  These are cases where "cable and satellite WILL NOT WORK." As in, you are right next to the tower which is overpowering incoming signals.
  That isn't what it says at all. RTFA yourself.
  Some areas can't get cable or satellite. They are not cabled up and don't have good enough satellite reception (particularly in the far north of the country). Quite what this alternative solution will be isn't clear because most places have terrible or non-existent broadband too. Â£10k isn't enough to get fibre laid to your door in a remote area.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Antony-Kyre · 2012-02-22 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  I don't fully understand the issue. Looking at the article, it mentions something about overlap in the spectrum. Is it that some TV stations are so close to what 4G mobile devices will use that it will somehow cause interference? Isn't it better to avoid that overlap to begin with rather than potentially ruin it for some people?
  I'd go as far as to say those people affected deserve to get free limited cable or satellite paid for by the spectrum holder. And for those without the choice, well, hopefully something will work out.
7. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by SuricouRaven · 2012-02-22 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  Radio isn't quite as clean as it looks on the diagrams. There are no sharp transitions where one band ends and another begins. Electronics like to broadcast or receive at harmonics of the intended frequency, filters are not perfectly clean, and signals can mix in strange ways. The dirty reality of real-world engineering sometimes gets in the way of the nice clean chunks in which spectrum is allocated. Analog solved the problem by just putting in unused guard bands between channels. I'm not sure how digital fixes it.
8. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by MoonBuggy · 2012-02-22 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'd go as far as to say those people affected deserve to get free limited cable or satellite paid for by the spectrum holder.
  And that's exactly what's happening! TFA states that the spectrum holders will be obliged to pay for filters, satellite/cable, or other solutions (probably fibre), in that order, for those who are affected.
9. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by ultranova · 2012-02-23 01:02 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The 10k is to install a fiber-optic based solution to the residence.
  
  Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just give them a Royal exemption from copyright law and let them get the shows from Pirate Bay?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
10. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by NJRoadfan · 2012-02-23 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing, despite the lack of OTA TV service, the UK still requires folks in those areas to pay the TV licensing fee.
11. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Custard+Horse · 2012-02-23 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  It is content that people are paying for not the method of delivery. When a prolific torrenter is arrested, it is not due to ISP abuse.
12. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by spiralx · 2012-02-23 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well if they're watching TV, then yes.
13. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-23 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you have OTA TV service; you just use satellite instead.
  The other great thing about satellite is that the dishes are small and usually mounted relatively low down and close to a wall. This means they are far less susceptible to high winds than a big dangly Yagi stuck up on a tall pole.
14. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Satellite coverage on the other hand is pretty much 100%, line-of-sight issues notwithstanding. Trees aren't the only issues though. If someone lives in rented accommodation they may not be allowed to put up a dish, and even if they own it they may not have a south-east-facing area to mount a dish.
  or in a grade I, II or 'A' (depending where you are in the UK) listed buildings. In fact there are many local by-laws on even leased accommodation (where you own the property but not the land it's on) that you are not allowed to mount any 'external' fixings. That's a 'few million' buildings right there.
  And no you don't need to live in Buckingham Palace to have Grade I or II status. Many, many very old and rural villages (rural by UK standards) have lots of listed buildings that are 'regular' homes.
  There is also a general aversion to digging up the road - many areas of the UK simply still do not have any kind of infrastructure in place, I know, I've lived in many villages where the Parish Council didn't allow the private companies to dig up the roads for the cable. Hell, my village doesn't even have any street lighting (and they are proud of that fact here too).
  However that was before the analog signal was switched off. I wonder how that will change things.
15. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  But if you live in a conservation area or have a 1* listed building you can't shove a dish on it. Even my inlaws on the edge of dartmoor are not allowed a satelite dish that is visible form the public highway
16. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Dark$ide · 2012-02-23 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing, despite the lack of OTA TV service, the UK still requires folks in those areas to pay the TV licensing fee.
  It doesn't matter how you receive your broadcast signal if you have "broadcast receiving equipment" you are required to pay the licence fee aka "BBC Tax".
  
  --
  Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
17. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-23 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why you stick it in the "coal bunker" that you *are* allowed to have, looking through the fibreglass panel in the roof. Or, you tuck it out of sight of the road round the back of the house. Since you've typically got insanely high levels at the LNB you can get away with a much longer cable run than with an aerial, even before you start getting into amplifiers.
  If you're in a conservation area, you're quite likely not allowed a terrestrial TV aerial either.
18. Re:Extreme means CABLE does not work by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-23 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how it's a "tax". In the US, do you call your cable TV fees a "tax"?
OT: Redundancies by Venner · 2012-02-22 17:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Just yesterday I actually had someone tell me to enter my "personal PIN number ID" for a university copying machine. That's enough to make one's head explode.
And I once had a wedding invitation that said "Please respond to RSVP promptly."

--
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
1. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 18:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That is simply because a large portion of the population does not truly think about what they are saying and are simply regurgitating what they have heard.
  I do love how if you correct someone, a lot of the time they will see it as an attack against them. Instead of taking it as what it really is, an attempt to help them not look like a fool when speaking.
  I have a guy here at work who consistently uses a double negative in 80% of his speech. It is really annoying to hear him consistently butcher language like that and be completely oblivious to it.
2. Re:OT: Redundancies by mug+funky · 2012-02-22 18:46 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  there's also a good chance they learnt long ago and are now doing it to annoy you personally.
  i do that to some people, if i feel they need a good trollin'
3. Re:OT: Redundancies by Pikoro · 2012-02-22 19:11 · Score: 2
  
  Hey, for your FYI, that's how everyone seems to talk these days :)
  
  --
  "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
4. Re:OT: Redundancies by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-22 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  ... which is probably less of a WTF because the P in "RSVP" doesn't stand for "promptly".
5. Re:OT: Redundancies by grahamm · 2012-02-22 21:19 · Score: 0
  
  Just yesterday I actually had someone tell me to enter my "personal PIN number ID" for a university copying machine. That's enough to make one's head explode.
  Which is not the actual PIN, but the PIN's ID - which in this case would probably be the student or staff number. (ie whatever it is that identifies which PIN is being requested).
6. Re:OT: Redundancies by grahamm · 2012-02-22 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  So the correct thing to say would the "RSVP promptly".
7. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  OK, so you are asked to promptly respond to the Resource Reservation Protocol. Obviously you are a server. :-)
8. Re:OT: Redundancies by Joce640k · 2012-02-22 22:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yep. I always try to correct them when I can, keep them on the straightened arrow.
  
  --
  No sig today...
9. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 22:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  simply - you might mean "naively", in that you're presenting what seems to be an obvious explanation but hasn't been subject to rigour;
  large portion - large proportion. We're not discussing Soylent Green;
  truly - common and completely unnecessary filler. Are we contrasting with people who falsely think?
  simply - argh.
  
  I do love how if you correct someone, a lot of the time they will see it as an attack against them. Instead of taking it as what it really is, an attempt to help them not look like a fool when speaking.
  (1) You appear to have judged the speaker to "look like a fool" who doesn't "think about what they are saying". Unless you're a lot more careful with your language and demeanour when you speak to them - and your post suggests you lack any ability at subtlety, politeness or good language - then they are correct to observe an attack;
  (2) Someone who routinely "corrects" people in this way seems like the fool to me, or at least in some way mentally or socially deficient. Perhaps they have some obsessive disorder which elevates minor inefficiencies in language to the status of causing pain, or perhaps they make up for their own inability to be creative and able in general by emphasising one particular narrow talent and impressing it on everyone else;
  In the specific case, "Please respond to this RSVP promptly," the syntax and meaning are quite clear: "an RSVP" is used colloquially to refer to the present document requesting a response, so the request is to respond to the document promptly. The request could be made shorter, just as we could remove so much needless filler from your post, but the writer does not "look like a fool" for stating it.
  (3) My concern that you are socially deficient is confirmed when you say that your words, despite causing distress to others, are "an attempt to help them". Advice, as Bierce wrote, is the smallest current coin. Saying what you think about some minor matter is in no way helpful if others do not want to hear it.
  
  I have a guy here at work who consistently uses a double negative in 80% of his speech.
  Does "consistently... in 80%" have some sort of meaning, or are you just trying to bolster your argument by sounding more specific than the extent of your observation warrants?
  
  It is really annoying
  Yeah, obsessive disorder.
  
  to hear him consistently butcher language like that and be completely oblivious to it.
  consistently consistently!
  It might initially be confusing, but it's hardly "butchering" to do what is routine in many European languages. Perhaps the guy's non-native? If so, you'd do better in life to stop preaching and start learning and understanding others. If not, you'd still do better to follow this course. Recall Postel's maxim and recall that he got a lot further than you by following it.
10. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 23:00 · Score: 0
  
  This. I wish I had mod point for parent AC
11. Re:OT: Redundancies by jones_supa · 2012-02-22 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  Just yesterday I actually had someone tell me to enter my "personal PIN number ID" for a university copying machine. That's enough to make one's head explode.
  That truly is golden. Like art.
12. Re:OT: Redundancies by SuricouRaven · 2012-02-22 23:42 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  There's an old story, almost certainly a complete fabrication.
  
  ---
  
  A teacher is lecturing students thus: "In English, by convention a double negative is itsself a negative. For example, 'You're not going nowhere' would mean 'you're going somewhere.' In Russian, by contrast, a double negative makes a positive. That is, the expression 'you're not going nowhere' would mean 'you're not leaving.' It should be noted that in no language can two positives be taken to mean a negative."
  
  A student then calls sarcastically from the back, "Yeah, right."
13. Re:OT: Redundancies by ciderbrew · 2012-02-22 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  This site lacks the "like" function. So +1 Like from me.
14. Re:OT: Redundancies by expatriot · 2012-02-23 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  undoing mod. This should be up.
15. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. I always try to correct them when I can, keep them on the straightened arrow.
  Yes, because the crooked arrow hurts like the dickens!
16. Re:OT: Redundancies by oodaloop · 2012-02-23 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  And the La Brea Tar Pits.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
17. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  It's called "moderation."
18. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  Becky? Is that you?
19. Re:OT: Redundancies by operagost · 2012-02-23 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  simply - you might mean "naively", in that you're presenting what seems to be an obvious explanation but hasn't been subject to rigour;
  
  "That is naively because a large portion of the population does not truly think about what they are saying and are simply regurgitating what they have heard." Does that make sense to you?
  
  large portion - large proportion. We're not discussing Soylent Green;
  
  Considering that the first definition for "portion" in most dictionaries is "a part of a whole", not your narrow definition of "an amount of food", you're either a troll or an even worse pedant than the person to which you responded. And when I say "pedant" I mean the primary definition of "someone who relies too much on academics or is overly obsessed with detail", not "schoolmaster".
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
20. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  PRSVP
21. Re:OT: Redundancies by nine-times · 2012-02-23 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  That is simply because a large portion of the population does not truly think about what they are saying and are simply regurgitating what they have heard.
  That's because humans learn language by "regurgitating what they have heard". It's all imitation of convention-- using a set of noises which tones which indicate some intention. Most of the time, you yourself are not truly thinking about what you are saying.
22. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  "That is naively because a large portion of the population does not truly think about what they are saying and are simply regurgitating what they have heard." Does that make sense to you?
  You're not very good at reading comprehension. Try reading the whole line to understand the message that the author is putting across.
  Hint: it's about the semantics of the first "simply", not an attempt to rewrite a stupid assertion.
  
  Considering that the first definition for "portion" in most dictionaries is "a part of a whole",
  As an Englishman it bothers me the way Americans like to treat bodies of people in the singular (in language, philosophy and the law) and give them their own personality - "Microsoft is..." vs "Microsoft are..." etc. I prefer "proportion" because it brings to mind the ratio of two counts rather than cutting a slice from some amorphous blob.
  But "portion of the population" is still acceptable and I think the poster was trying to be amusing by implying that "portion of the population" brings to mind a meal. Since you failed abysmally at understanding the first line and you're the sort to resort to "um but the dictionary says...!!!", I guess it'd be too much to expect that you'd entertain this possibility for the second.
  
  And when I say "pedant" I mean the primary definition of "someone who relies too much on academics or is overly obsessed with detail", not "schoolmaster".
  The post was well said and you should look at yourself if you have trouble either understanding it or swallowing its message.
23. Re:OT: Redundancies by operagost · 2012-02-23 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  An appeal to ridicule is also not an acceptable argument. Thanks for playing.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
24. Re:OT: Redundancies by mcgrew · 2012-02-23 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Only moderators get a "like" button. They also get a "fiuck you" button. I think any site with a "like" button should follow slashdot's lead and have a "fuck you" button as well!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
25. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  There is surely something extremely ironic about using Postel's maxim to bitch about someone else's behaviour in a post which is at least 5 times longer than the original.
  Yeah, obsessive disorder.
  Actually, can you help me? I'm trying to find the name of the psychological disorder which makes people think they can judge what psychological disorders people have from their internet posts. What's that thing called? :)
26. Re:OT: Redundancies by Venner · 2012-02-23 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I think Terry Pratchett noted that shifting a single letter changes this sentence, but does not terribly change the meaning:
  Straight as an arrow
  Straight as a narrow
  Fun.
  
  --
  A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
27. Re:OT: Redundancies by Dark$ide · 2012-02-23 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  So the correct thing to say would the "RSVP promptly".
  It's probably more correct to stick to French and use "RSVP rapidement" (Respondez S'il Vous Plait rapidement).
  
  --
  Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
28. Re:OT: Redundancies by dave420 · 2012-02-23 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone misusing "RSVP" so badly is a muppet.
29. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  A sound argument cannot be impugned merely because it is seasoned with ridicule. :'(
30. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Because we all know, RSVP stands for "Remember, Send Vedding Present", not any of that Frenchy "répondez s'il vous plaît".
31. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Or just stick with English and use PRP (Please Respond Promptly).
32. Re:OT: Redundancies by jc42 · 2012-02-23 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  And I once had a wedding invitation that said "Please respond to RSVP promptly."
  Except that RSVP is different from the other examples in one important way: It's an abbreviation of a French phrase, not an English phrase. So to people who don't speak or read French (which is the overwhelming majority of the world's people), it's just an acronym for a nonsensical phrase, and its individual letters don't stand for anything at all.
  But it's fun to mock the ignorant, especially those so ignorant as to not understand French, so please proceed ...
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
33. Re:OT: Redundancies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  Most people that don't converse in polite society think "RSVP" means "invitation" and just show up on the day. The person who sent the RSVP would like to clarify that obtaining correct numbers for the venue IS A MATTER OF EXTREME IMPORTANCE, PLEASE RESPOND IMMEDIATELY YOU MOUTHBREATHING MORON IT'S A FUCKING RSVP, but they're being polite about it.
34. Re:OT: Redundancies by KevReedUK · 2012-02-24 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, can you help me? I'm trying to find the name of the psychological disorder which makes people think they can judge what psychological disorders people have from their internet posts. What's that thing called? :)
  I think the term you're looking for is "Internet forum poster/ contributor/ member"
  
  --
  Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
Re:DYING for entertainment by Beelzebud · 2012-02-22 17:56 · Score: 1

Toynbee Idea
In Movie 2001
Resurrect Dead
On Planet Jupiter
imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 18:55 · Score: 0

The Suffering!
The Southeast Suffers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 19:21 · Score: 0

It's a non-issue for a lot of the UK: Wales, for example, has long since switched over. From memory, London is the last area to be switched from analogue to digital. It's also likely to be the target of early 4G upstarts.
1. Re:The Southeast Suffers by Chrisq · 2012-02-22 20:40 · Score: 2
  
  It's a non-issue for a lot of the UK: Wales, for example, has long since switched over. From memory, London is the last area to be switched from analogue to digital. It's also likely to be the target of early 4G upstarts.
  No this is talking about interference to the digital service when the analogue bands are re-used.
Spectrum by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 19:33 · Score: 0

We've found better uses for finite spectrum. Pumping TV around is best done with wires. Mobile users can't suffer wires. Get your TV on the Internet and piss off.
The One Show by stx23 · 2012-02-22 20:02 · Score: 1

10 k will buy an awful lot of iPads running iPlayer, SkyPlayer and See-Saw or whatever the TV over Internet UK initiaitve became.
1. Re:The One Show by JasterBobaMereel · 2012-02-22 20:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The people who are in line to get the 10k will also have non-existent broadband ..
  These are people who live in an area with no cable, bad satellite coverage, and bad analog TV coverage
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
2. Re:The One Show by stx23 · 2012-02-22 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  They will have good mobile reception though, surely? I can watch HD TV on my phone & tablet over HSPA.
3. Re:The One Show by djsmiley · 2012-02-22 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if your trolling, but your ignorance is amusing.
  You think that mobile signals will need less bandwidth than a static TV signal? Ok they are totally different frequencies currently, but the idea that a one way transmission of a image can use more bandwidth than a 2 way transmission by a mobile device is laughable.
  
  --
  - http://www.milkme.co.uk
4. Re:The One Show by TheRaven64 · 2012-02-23 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  If they don't have a TV signal because of interference from 4G, then there's a good chance that they do have very a good mobile signal. If they're living sufficiently far from an exchange that ADSL isn't an option and outside a major population centre so that cable isn't available, then they're likely not to be sharing it with too many people.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
5. Re:The One Show by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately as soon as you try to use them you'll be hit by bandwidth charges. £10,000 will probably cover it for a week or so.
6. Re:The One Show by Alioth · 2012-02-23 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  They will have really good LTE broadband access, since that's what'll be interfering with their TV. They just need to use the iPlayer, SkyPlayer and whatever via LTE. The 10K can pay for a perpetual unlimited LTE connection.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
7. Re:The One Show by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  In that case, £10,000 isn't enough.
  What they should be awarded is unlimited 4G mobile data forever (based on current overage rates, £10,000 is unlikely to buy much of that...). Make the trouble-makers (4G operators) pay in free data.
Re:DYING for entertainment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 20:32 · Score: 0

Toynbee Idea
In Movie 2001
Resurrect Dead
On Planet Jupiter
Burma Shave?
Re:DYING for entertainment by St.Creed · 2012-02-22 21:13 · Score: 1

If I were you, I wouldn't stop taking my meds before posting on slashdot.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Just like the US with HDTV by bigsexyjoe · 2012-02-22 21:43 · Score: 1

The fact of the matter is, they just don't want to provide you with free television anymore. In the U.S., we "upgraded" to digital television that almost no one can get a usable signal on. Do you really think corporations are going to stand by and tolerate the government giving you a free service that they have to compete with? Of course not. I think useable free television signals will become increasingly rare across the world.

--
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
1. Re:Just like the US with HDTV by Spad · 2012-02-22 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  The majority of the UK has had access to free OTA digital TV for quite a few years now via Freeview with the Freesat option for those who already have a satellite dish on their house and the coverage has generally been getting better over time, rather than worse.
2. Re:Just like the US with HDTV by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Almost no one? I can get an excellent signal, far better one than I used to get from analog broadcasts. I used to get 2 or 3 channels with some clarity, and 4 with washout, now it's up to 6, 10 counting the side channels that display different content.
  I am quite content.
3. Re:Just like the US with HDTV by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  Where I live (Canada) we converted to digital TV last year. I put up an antenna. I only get 7 local channels, but they all come in very well. One comes in less ok (only 13 out of 18 bars on the Signal meter). The floor limit (where you get pixelation and stuff) is about 4 bars. Where the US mandated the electronic signal guide (and Canada didn't), Canada mandated HDTV (only one station broadcasts in 720p, all the rest are 1080i). The broadcasters grumped long and hard about having to convert, and one local station went to a satellite/cable offering only, but the rest switched, and everything really does look better in digital.
i am glad this does not concern me by mapkinase · 2012-02-22 22:00 · Score: 1

I don't have a 4G phone.
Or a TV.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
1. Re:i am glad this does not concern me by Elky+Elk · 2012-02-23 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for sharing that, important to know.
2. Re:i am glad this does not concern me by oodaloop · 2012-02-23 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Awesome. Please let us know all articles that do not pertain to you. Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
3. Re:i am glad this does not concern me by mapkinase · 2012-02-23 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Har. Har. You just got a perspective, bird's view, on your problem. You are welcome
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
4G? by craigtp · 2012-02-22 22:26 · Score: 1

Whoa, slow down there!

Never mind rolling out a 4G network, a lot of the cellular/mobile networks in the UK can't even provide a decent 3G service!

I'm with O2, and in a built-up populous city and at least 50% of the time I find that I have an incredibly poor 3G signal. This figure doubles when I go indoors.

Let's try and make the 3G signal better first before we start jumping onto the "next big thing". Or if 4G really is the saviour of 3G's ills, let's get rid of 3G and have the networks provide all us consumers with free upgrades to 4G!
1. Re:4G? by Jerry+Atrick · 2012-02-23 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  800Mhz has much better propagation than 1.9/2.1Ghz, that's partly why they're so keen to grab these frequencies for it. Whilst it won't turn O2 into a real phone company, it should massively improve reception almost everywhere. Just a pity we'll all need new phones to use it.
  If you want working 3G, stop pissing your money away on O2, a company only upgrading their 3G support because the alternative was losing their licence for failing to hit any coverage targets. Unfortunately the regulator doesn't seem to have compelled them to install any backhaul so coverage improvements aren't matched by available bandwidth!
lack of common sense perhaps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 01:35 · Score: 0

So someone up there let the 4g spectrum band get over the analogue tv spectrum without any problem ? Shouldn't that be discrimination in some way...or even perhaps illegal ? Correct me if I'm wrong but if someone steps on another already occupied spectrum, he won't be able to continue..well in the us at least ? No ?
1. Re:lack of common sense perhaps by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-23 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not entirely. It's quite possible for services to share spectrum, but part of Ofcom's remit is to ensure that licences are only issued in such a way that interference between them is minimised.
  So, for example, I havea radio repeater, and about 30 miles away, the ambulance service in the next county to the north runs a repeater on one of the same frequencies. It's not a massive problem, because there's a hill in between that UHF can't really get through. No biggie. However, they won't assign the same frequency to anyone much further away to the south, because it's flat and the signal will travel a long way - far beyond the "expected" range of my licence. Planning is everything.
  I don't see why it would be a problem. Simply keep the LTE kit off the same frequencies used by TV transmitters in a given area, which is pretty much what Ofcom are paid vast amounts of money to do.
Suffering? by sproketboy · 2012-02-23 02:30 · Score: 1

Oh the humanity!
No free tv across the World? by Artemis3 · 2012-02-23 05:50 · Score: 1

Ah!, so that's why ATSC was designed that way, to kill indoor and mobile reception and force everyone invest in a fixed installation...
However you are mistaken with the "increasingly rare across the world" part. You see, very few countries were foolish enough to adopt the American digital standard, and while the European DVB system is not perfect, it does allow for mobile reception and some indoor.
The Japanese system (enhanced in Brazil) is becoming increasingly popular in 3rd world nations. The whole of South America, and some other Asian countries which used NTSC and PAL in the past, are joining with ISDB-T. This system allows for both mobile (as in 120kph/75mph moving car) and bunny rabbit/circle antenna indoor reception. Just watch these tests on live digital tv reception under different conditions.
You only need to take a look to the minority of ATSC countries to get a glimpse of the places where free tv is becoming rare, basically just North America...
As a matter of fact, one of the modifications done in Brazil to the Japanese system, was the complete removal of DRM, that and the technology transfer without payment of licenses or such. We like free as in freedom, thank you very much...

--
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
1. Re:No free tv across the World? by scotjam · 2012-02-27 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  "technology transfer without payment of licenses or such. We like free as in freedom, thank you very much..."
  
  Sounds as if you like free as in beer too...
proposed solution ... by jc42 · 2012-02-23 06:23 · Score: 1

... and in extreme cases may be granted funding to find their own solution.
The obvious solution is to download the TV shows you want to watch using 4G and the Internet. When the phone company complains, you tell them that your lawyer thinks you'd have a good case against them, since they're the ones who bought up the spectrum and are broadcasting signals to "jam" their TV reception.
It might be fun to watch this play out. I wonder how well class actions against such "jamming" would work in the UK.
Of course, in the long run, broadcast TV is dead, and will eventually be moved over to IP-based services. But in the short run, the TV industry has political and economic clout, and can do lots of damage to their up-and-coming competitors.
It's all a plot to extract more money from the customers, of course.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.