Analog TV . . . the switch off begins . . . !

That may have been me cwathen, but probably before the govt announced their plans for spectrum usage after analogue switch off.

They plan to MOVE some existing digital services to some of the frequencies currently used by analogue services, in some areas. The aim is to create a smaller block in the middle of the current band that is used for digital TV, leaving the top and the bottom free of all analgoue or digital TV broadcasts. This spectrum could be sold off for non-TV use - or conceivably used for a newer single-frequency TV network using HDTV? (That is a guess from me!)

I may have misremembered the plan for a central single block for TV - it may be they free up the central band and concentrate digital broadcasts at the top and bottom of the current band?

This is a nightmare scenario for people still using tightly grouped analogue aerials (that are optimised for a narrow frequency band) - but less of a problem for people who have fitted wider-band aerials (often suggested for digital where some TXes are out of the analogue TX group previously used in the area)

Of course it might not happen - still a while to go.

I made the comment as well about sub-24inch TVs not being widely available at a reasonable cost. The current solution seems to be LCD sets - which are expensive and don't provide as good an interlaced picture as tubed TVs (though they look quite "flash" as objects)

Sony used to make a nice 16" 16:9 CRT set about 6 years ago - but sadly they don't.

However I do see that there are now some smaller broadcast 16:9 monitors being manufactured - hopefull these might filter into the domestic arena?

CRT / Tubes are still the best value for a decent quality picture.

SKY did this first

Did what first?

I think, Phil, that he MIGHT be talking about Sky being the first in this country to switch off their analogue transmissions.

However, I'm only guessing and I wish he'd make himself clear when he posts.

I'd be perfectly happy to go digital WHEN:

The picture can be delivered
a) in sync with sound

b) without pixilation on fades

c) without pixilation because the transmitter can't handle the demands on the bandwith. It's annoying to watch programmes which I've been involved in look worse than 16mm rough cuts and 5 generations of Beta oxide

d) when it can be delivered by aerial, as I don't want to pay anymore
(we are about to return our digi box after 2-3 years) but, what will happen in our area which is a repeater transmitter and there are no plans to switch it over?

e) without breakdowns in service which has never happened with our 20 year old aerial.

f) as for 16:9 what will happen to all the archive footage that's used?
It will be cropped so you'll have a nice 4:3 image on your sreen.

But heh, that's progress for you.

I presume once the 'everything must be widescreen!' fad dies out, old material will once again be shown in it's native 4:3 and not cropped.

I can continue to hope that 16:9 will die out eventually, I don't buy the concept of widescreen TV at all.

At work today I read that in Carmarthenshire they will be provided with digital terrestrial receivers for all television sets, AND 'video converters'.

I'm surprised they're bothering with this experiment and not just taking down the transmitter and placing a few wireless hotspots around the place and making everybody access their TV channels via streaming media on the internet.

I bet in 30 years' time there'll be no such thing as a "TV" but "Video Content" on your PC, and everybody will be used to watching juddery, low-definition, highly-compressed streaming versions of the BBC, ITV etc. but with tons of other services from the likes of Clear Channel, all fighting for the broadband bandwidth, which by then will seem as dismally slow as 56k dial-up does now, because its capabilities will be pushed up to and beyond its operating tolerancies, then a new 'broadband x2' will come out, then a 'broadband x3', then all the 'broadcasters' will announce that they're going to compress everything 4 times as much, but delivering you 3x4 more services, so that you have 1,250 channels of crap to look out whilst sending e-Mails to people who live next door and waiting for your online order from Tesco to be delivered, which will be delayed because everybody will be ordering online and nobody will be leaving the house and the Tesco trucks will have to stop at EVERY door, but nobody will notice anyway because they're moving and clicking their mouse 300 times a minute flicking through the various services they're 'monitoring', the various music tracks they're downloading from 'Napster Legal' and any other webpages they're browsing, tearing their hair out if an entire album doesn't download within 1/10th of a second.

If I may just extend your cynicism for a bit:

People will also be incredibly fat because they don't walk anywhere anymore.

They'll probably still be sending pointless, illegible, gramatically incorrect 160 character SMS messages because "its cool" and downloading overpriced ringtones of offensive and frankly meaningless manufactured pop songs which are played incessantly by radio stations with a playlist of < 20 tracks up to 5 weeks before the single is actually released so you would never want to buy it anyway even if it did actually have a tune...

Oh - and we'll all have houses cleaned by robots and fridges with the internet on them that will automatically order our shopping, or something.

One of the things that is annoying me at the moment is the ridiculous amount of hype wireless internet access is getting at the moment. Yes I use it, if I want to move a laptop around the house at home, or get the internet from an overpriced access point in a hotel.

But it is *not* anywhere near as amazing as its made out to be. The transfer rates are vastly (usually at least 50%) below the values quoted due to the specifications of the various transport layers, even before you start talking about distance from transmitter to receiver. Worse, there is plenty of cross channel interference - which will only get worse as more people get wireless equipment. Wireless lans, DECT phones, microwaves, satellite receivers and bluetooth can all cause various conflicts with each other. We now have, as usual in computing, at least 3 different standards with no real way of knowing which one will take a lead. Should I bother mentioning the fact that the encryption is still very weak and few people remember to even switch it on?

What's worse is that despite all the above, its being promoted as an incredibly simple technology anyone can install. Non technical people get into all sorts of problems with wireless lans, when, for a similar cost, they could easily install, or get someone else to install, some nice neat ethernet cabling which would be guaranteed to work, have a far higher transfer rate and not be sending even more electronic junk around the place.

I am fed up of tried and tested methods, ie. proper broadcasting, both analogue and digital, being derided in favour of all this exciting new wireless stuff which is nowhere near providing as good a service and was never designed for this purpose.

The internet is there for a pupose (and indeed I've worked in IT for many years now) but its not to replace broadcasting, in the same way that it would be appalling if people began to think "radio" equalled an ipod or an mp3 player playing those 20 songs I mentioned earlier (sadly I think some already do).

Thank you for letting me get that rant out of the way...

Not completely true.

Analogue TV has two, rather major drawbacks. First is that it is composite. Composite signals are inferior to component -- which is delivered in a modified form on MAC and MPEG transmissions (ie RGB).

Secondly, since the majority of transmissions on the terrestrial channels are widescreen, on analogue these broadcasts are distorted by the conversion between 625-line and the 550-lineish 14:9 letterbox transmissions.

On a large TV (36" and above) these two issues are very clear and degrade the picture quality substantially IMO.

Yes, the overcompression of most (but not all) digital channels can also be off-putting, but please don't try to imply that analogue is in some way perfect because it is far from that.

The picture quality from a high quality film-to-DVD transfer played on a good DVD player is much higher quality than an analogue transmission, however good the signal quality may be. Several European channels are more or less the same quality. It would be perfectly possible to get the same picture quality with digital broadcasts here; it's only the greed of the broadcasters, coupled with the fact that the average Joe is happy with a crap picture that spoils digital broadcasts.

Even now, I am more willing to put up with BBC1's digital picture (on satellite) than the analogue version.

Er, I thought the Radio 3 MW frequency was taken over by Virgin a few years back!

I take your point on local BBC, but even some of those have given up AM frequencies. eg BBC WM & BBC Radio Leicester AM becoming 'The Asian Network'