Digital Switchover - Regional Timetable

And in the meantime, practically every large-screen TV on sale has analogue teletext. Even if they stopped selling them now, thousands of teletext sets will remain in circulation in three years time; it's a safe bet they still would be four years later.

While the means to receive teletext remains, the broadcasters have an obligation to provide it. I pray the BBC and ITV will have a rethink.

Absolutely NOT.

Isn't there some thing that forbids ITV having Analogue Teletext on their Digital service, I think the same goes for the BBC, but some channels did carry Ceefax. Face it as Nick said, Ceefax will be dead as the dodo, the only operative function it will have on Digital is Page 888, which is commonly used on channels don't provide Teletext services or Digital Subtitles services too.

As for TV's being equipped, I presume that is a basic function of most TV's these days, it's rather standard. Also remember other countries which use the same TV's still rely on analogue. Though it isn't as powerful these days, Teletext was a mean of a Point of Sale for your average TV.

Indeed, Mr nwtv.

This whole thread is about switching things off.

Televisions will still be about after 2011 which will be capable of receiving 625 line analogue UHF transmissions, but nobody will be under any obligation to send them any signals.

Just because I've got a 405 line VHF set in the cupboard under the stairs, doesn't mean the broadcasters are under any obligation to transmit to it.

Just because somebody's got a fan web site, it doesn't mean the producers of the programme it's about have to be nice to them.

Sometimes. Simon, you give the impression that you really ARE at the CENTRE of the universe.

Morally if not legally.


Here's a really radical idea. Is it not possible, just for once, that the subject matter of a thread can be discussed without descending to any form of personal mockery of someone who posts their response?

Nah, too radical for this forum.

Just realised - ever since we got Sky 3.5 years ago, We've never used Ceefax or Teletext!

Possibly because most satellite channels don't have it. But if it was there, would you use it?

Probably not - Sky Text and BBC Interactive et al cater for my needs nicely....

So, analogue TV will be gone from the south west within 4 years will it? Forgive me for not continuing but the urge to roll about on the floor is too great.

EDIT: OK, having now got some time lets have a look at this...

<rant mode>


Oh come on! Sky have got an effective monopoly on satellite TV in this country that will take years to break, if it's ever possible. I disagree that 99% of the country (doubtless a completely plucked out of the air figure) can get dsat - their are too many people who, for whatever reason, cannot have a satellite dish. Satellite is never going to get anywhere near 99% penetration.

Keeping analogue on until 2012 is not a cop out, switching it off totally then is a ridiculous and completely unachievable target which will not happen in a month of sundays.


31/12/2008 for total analogue switch off? Even though DTT is STILL restricted to main stations and small numbers of relays, Even though many people still need aerial upgrades (or indeed, need to get an external aerial installed in the first place) to get DTT which they haven't got yet? Even though there are thousands (if not millions) of people living in blocks of flats with a communal aerial system which doesn't support DTT and the parties responsible are making no headway at all in changing this? Even though most people in the country who have digital TV merely *use* it, but still have numerous analogue dependencies?

Analogue is still way, way, way too relied upon to be turned off any time soon.

And quite frankly, the prospect of loosing Ceefax and being stuck with BBCi Text in a few years terrifies the hell out of me - it's still an awful clunky thing to use (aswell as being sparse on content) despite it's 6 years of development.


'A £50 levy'. So in other words, you think people should be effectively fined for not having digital TV? Are you a complete idiot, or is it just on here?

Why on earth do some people prattle on about analogue switchoff as though the world will somehow become a better place when we're all digital, and talk down to the 'digital non wanters' in such a condencending tone as though they are some sort of stupid, subhuman lifeform.

The technical quality of digital TV in this country is awful. No way in hell will I welcome the day when overcompressed mush using primitive mid-90's compression technology becomes the norm. Other countries have seen genuine improvement from introducing digital, we've seen nothing but more channels (most of which pointless). Digital *could* have been better than analogue, but it sure as hell ain't here.

But as to your suggestion that people should pay a premium for not having a digital receiver, what on earth are you on? Maybe people can't receive digital TV, maybe they can't afford, maybe they are quite happy with the 4 channels they can allready get and don't want to pay for something which they won't make use of. And how on earth do you propose to enforce this ridiculous suggestion? Will the remit of the TV licencing officer include inspecting someone's house to check that they have indeed got a digital receiver and aren't a nasty dirty digital TV refusenick daring to evade their fine for being one of these lowlife analogue viewers?

Whilst we're on TV licencing, at present they extort a great deal of money from premises ill-equipped to pick up any TV at all. In one of my student houses, we had no external aerial, we were served by a low power relay with no digital service and no prospect of it in the immediate future. With analogue gone, we'd have no TV at all, unless we agreed to subscribe to cable, at cost to us. The entire surrounding area (including literally hundreds of multi-occupancy council properties) were in the same or a similar boat. If you got rid of analogue, we'd have no TV at all. No TV = no TV licence. Trying to force an early switch over will be the same as a switch *off* for many people. You may not think such people matter, but if a siginifcant number of TV licences are lost as a result of this (as I think they will be), the BBC will have less money to work from, and will have to lean more and more towards a commercial style of operation. The quality of public service TV will fall, which WILL affect you.

The only sensible way to turn off analogue is to monitor the levels of those still using it, and turn it off when those left reliant on it are too small a number to make it's provision viable. I can understand the government wanting it to be switched off as soon as possible so they can sell off the spectrum, but why people on this forum hold any other viewpoint is beyond me - and before anyone says it, the space made available by loosing analogue does not mean that we will get more DTT multiplexes.

</rant mode>

Indeed not - that's perfectly true. But it does present the opportunity for the 6 muxes that exist to be given the following
More power - the protection ratios required to protect analogue may be relaxed, at least in the middle of the areas concerned
More flexibility - the muxes can be better organised to correspond with the establised aerial groups for an area
A few more bits - yes just a few as the CODFM carriers that at present correspond with critical points of an analogue channel's anatomy are inhibited - These are those that would correspond to the colour and NICAM sub-carriers and a few at the chennel extremities.
More relays - not all relays in the analogue plan have too be provided for DTT - some were only there to prevent ghosting, and therfore can be discarded. Of those that remain some may just be active reflectors. Losing analogue gives the flexibility to add the relays requred to drive-up houshold coverage toward the current analogue figure. A l;ot of this can be pre-configured, especially at the smaller relays.
: More effective use of the bandwidth - so that the Treasuary can put up the For Sale sign (Although this trading bandwidth has more to do with the MoD making money than the broadcasters)
A lot of extra flexibility i the combining and feeding arrangments at high power stations - thus enabling such possibilities as (say) one main station differentially servicing two or more sub-regions without having to re-build the mast to carry the extre weight of aerials.

Have got to say the IMHO this policy has a lot to commend it, commercially, technically and politically. Selling the benefits of analogue switch-off is not easy.

The truth is that the gain of benefit to that part of the population that is not already digital in three yers time may be marginal, or latent. The state and the broadcasters take most of the benefit, so perhaps its right that at that stage they subsidise the consumer, possibly by using the Army as aerial riggers?

The regions chosen to go first seem the obvious ones, the timescale seems realistic - even though there will be a lot of slippage allowed! The only pity that I see, is that the Meridian region isn't going to be switched sooner.

Rgds/

I doubt students at Portsmouth University will be! I was in a ground floor flat in halls and the TV reception left a lot to be desired. BBC1 and Meridian were "least worst" but if you wanted BBC2 or C4 you had to adjust the aerial.

At least with analogue you get a sustained picture, albeit a poor one. I doubt that if you brought a set-top box in that room it would receive anything.

How can switching the Westcountry TV region over first be obvious? It's got more people dependent on what are presently analogue-only relays than you can shake a stick at, much of it is relatively poor and so many people simply couldn't afford to maintain the same level of equipment provision they have now with analogue gone, and present DTT coverage is poor.

Beyond that, other areas of TV delivery are much less developed, with cable existing only in Plymouth, and with there being countless premises which are unable to have a satellite dish (aswell as the generally poorer nature of the region meaning that many people are unable to afford a Sky subscription - yes I accept that you don't need Sky to have satellite, but the perception that you do is still far too ingrained to be changed any time soon).

I feel it's been selected for political reasons moreso than anything else - there are less people in the region, it's an area of the country which is often given such scant regard by the media and by the government that it might as well not exist (ever heard of the expression that 'the country stops at Bristol'?) so there will be less complaints received, and less importance attached to them.

There is a stronger case for turning London off first, but of course that will never happen because it would be political suicide, the media would have a field day.

Border was doubtless also included for the same reasons.