TV Home Forum

Should Ofcom auction off OUR TV frequencies?

(May 2008)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
NE
Neo
Jenny posted:
RDJ posted:
Think it might be yet another flaw on the swear filter. Changing 'Should of' to 'Should have'.


It should have course leave it as is.

So you think it's right that the system automatically changes "should Ofcom" to "Should havecom"?
- despite the fact that the world "Ofcom" is not the word "of". It would do the same with any other word that started with "of" - surely if it must attempt to correct people's grammar it should look at whole words and not just look at the first 2 characters of your word before assuming you've written "of".

Try typing these into a post and then submitting it and tell me you think it's correct the way it is:
Should offices be allowed to open? Should off licenses be allowed? Should Ofcom be allowed to auction?
PE
Pete Founding member
perhaps you should consider asking questions that are less daily mail and actually give people an options rather than stressing over the swear filter on this site.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
Neo posted:
Jenny posted:
RDJ posted:
Think it might be yet another flaw on the swear filter. Changing 'Should of' to 'Should have'.


It should have course leave it as is.

So you think it's right that the system automatically changes "should Ofcom" to "Should havecom"?
- despite the fact that the world "Ofcom" is not the word "of". It would do the same with any other word that started with "of" - surely if it must attempt to correct people's grammar it should look at whole words and not just look at the first 2 characters of your word before assuming you've written "of".

Try typing these into a post and then submitting it and tell me you think it's correct the way it is:
Should offices be allowed to open? Should off licenses be allowed? Should Ofcom be allowed to auction?


16 posts and you want to tell us how the site should operate?

Give me a break.
JO
Joe
Quote:
Yes - I don't care about TV quality or HDTV or SD stations
No - they should not auction of OUR frequencies, they should be used for HDTV and maybe SD too and should be available to watch by all people in the UK with an aerial

What a stupid thread. Why such biased questions? Why two pages on and no discussion? Why are you sucking up to punctuation like Del Monte?
JR
jrothwell97
Neo posted:
It's analogue TV that's being done away with. There will still be terrestrial (through an ariel) digital TV (Freeview etc.) - though not a very good TV system if Ofcom sells the bandwidth and not many HD & SD channels if they do or not a very high quality picture if they do.

Analogue TV is being done away with off probably because they think digital is the future, also so they can make money off selling the analogue frequencies Evil or Very Mad and so they can fit more channels/HD in the analogue frequencies. The more channels you fit in though, the worse the picture quality will be. With digital though you should be able to do more things than with analogue, like send data for episode guides/recording, and the picture being sent out (however bad because they sold a lot of the frequencies), with digital, shouldn't be any worse when it gets to consumer TVs (well unless there's picture breakup for whatever reason - but it won't ghost like analogue TV can sometimes - though having said that analogue TV could be very good quality too).


Sorry, that is completely incorrect.

The system's broadcast quality is at least equal to that used by Luddite TV, and, once digital switchover has completed, it will, in almost all areas, surpass the quality of analogue transmissions, whilst also offering more programming on a smaller frequency. I truly don't see what is wrong with a better service being provided in a way that actually frees up the rest of the spectrum. It's a win-win situation. If you desperately want HDTV, purchase a satellite dish and a Freesat converter box, that's due to have HDTV rolled out.

To Mr/Ms McMahon: the digital switchover is not 'doing away' with terrestrial. It is simply replacing the conventional analogue (raw) TV signal with a digital TV signal, which means that better picture quality can be achieved, and more channels delivered at the same time. One does not need to join a contract TV service such as Virgin Media or Sky to receive digital TV: at present, there are two options to receive digital TV without signing a contract.
  • You can continue to use your existing aerial, and buy a 'converter box' (also called a Freeview box) and plug it in to the back of your TV. The aerial's cable then goes into the converter box. This may, depending on where you live, not work until after the digital switchover, and you may need to get your aerial replaced (although this is unlikely). Converter boxes are incredibly cheap, some cost as little as £20. Some also come with a DVD or hard disk recorder, allowing programmes to be recorded onto plastic disks (DVDs) or onto the recorder itself (the disk inside the recorder, its hard disk ). Either way, this option is the simplest way to receive digital TV. Most TVs sold today (in particular, TVs which use a flat-panel screen instead of an old cathode-ray tube screen) have a digital converter in them, so if your old TV breaks, look for a TV tat has a digital tuner built in to it. This method is terrestrial TV.
  • The second, more complicated option is to buy a satellite dish, mounted on the wall of your home, and buy a different type of converter box, a Freesat converter box, which then plugs into your TV. I have no experience with these systems at all, but I can't imagine it being particularly complicated.


Overall, it's very easy and incredibly cheap to start receiving digital TV. If you've been told you have to sign up with a company to receive non-terrestrial TV after the switchover, you've been had.

edit: something else I note about this thread is that it s written in the style of a letter to the local tabloid newspaper. You know, the kind of paper that's free but you still feel cheated.
NE
Neo
jrothwell97 posted:


Sorry, that is completely incorrect.

The system's broadcast quality is at least equal to that used by Luddite TV, and, once digital switchover has completed, it will, in almost all areas, surpass the quality of analogue transmissions, whilst also offering more programming on a smaller frequency. I truly don't see what is wrong with a better service being provided in a way that actually frees up the rest of the spectrum. It's a win-win situation. If you desperately want HDTV, purchase a satellite dish and a Freesat converter box, that's due to have HDTV rolled out.

I'm glad we're moving to fully digital TV if it gives us a better quality picture and HDTV and more channels. There are reasons why some people cannot have satellite - which is why I would like good quality HDTV channels on Freeview.

I'm sure, in perfect conditions a good analogue broadcast/signal with no ghosting could be better than a heavily mpeg2 compressed 544x576 channel, which some Freeview channels are. Good analogue broadcasts don't break up or give compression artefacts because of lots of lighting changes or other difficult to compress footage.

But like I said, I'm glad we're going fully digital as I don't often watch analogue TV any more, but I want the highest quality digital TV channels possible (which includes a sufficient amount of HDTV channels) and sufficient bitrate to give good quality, and a good choice of Freeview channels.

Newer posts