http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm

"Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
from MPs.

A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."

In message 7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com,
Java Jive  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>
> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
> from MPs.
>
> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."

See the slightly less eloquently titled thread 'Is Joe Public thick as shit' 
in this NG...

Cheers,


-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

Ah!  Sorry about that, the title meant that it fell foul of my spam
filters ...

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:26:34 +0100, "ChrisM"
 wrote:
> 
> See the slightly less eloquently titled thread 'Is Joe Public thick as shit' 
> in this NG...

"Java Jive"  wrote in message 
news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>
> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
> from MPs.

Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?

>
> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."

A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would have 
been far better spent in giving every household in the country a free 
set-top box.

Agamemnon wrote:
> 
> "Java Jive"  wrote in message 
> news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>
>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>> from MPs.
> 
> Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
> 
>>
>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
> 
> A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would 
> have been far better spent in giving every household in the country a 
> free set-top box.
> 
Actually for once you're talking sense.

Rob.

In message , Agamemnon 
<agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>
>"Java Jive"  wrote in message 
>news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>
>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>> from MPs.
>
>Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
>
>>
>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
>
>A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would 
>have been far better spent in giving every household in the country a 
>free set-top box.
>
Only a couple of weeks ago (I think on Radio 4 'Today' programme), there 
was a little old lady complaining that she didn't understand this 
digital thing, and was worried that she would not be able to watch TV 
any longer, as she couldn't afford a new TV set. The interviewer made 
absolutely no attempt to tell her that all she would need would be a £20 
STB.
-- 
Ian

"Robert Wilson"  wrote in message 
news:NI-dnZKxmI7iQv7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>> "Java Jive"  wrote in message 
>> news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>>
>>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>>> from MPs.
>>
>> Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
>>
>>>
>>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
>>
>> A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would 
>> have been far better spent in giving every household in the country a 
>> free set-top box.
>>
> Actually for once you're talking sense.
>
> Rob.
Yes that bit was sensible. at least we didn't the equivalent of the army
of conscript "retuners" we got last time!

I disagree with his suggestion that the sale of analogue only equipment
should be banned. I just bought a cheap 14inch TV from ASDA and
I knew exactly what I was getting.
Mandatory labelling if you want, but not outright banning.
-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:7LwqhUG2B+YIFwcO@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Agamemnon 
> <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>>
>>"Java Jive"  wrote in message 
>>news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>>
>>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>>> from MPs.
>>
>>Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
>>
>>>
>>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
>>
>>A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would 
>>have been far better spent in giving every household in the country a free 
>>set-top box.
>>
> Only a couple of weeks ago (I think on Radio 4 'Today' programme), there 
> was a little old lady complaining that she didn't understand this digital 
> thing, and was worried that she would not be able to watch TV any longer, 
> as she couldn't afford a new TV set. The interviewer made absolutely no 
> attempt to tell her that all she would need would be a £20 STB.

And a TV with a SCART socket since for £20 you'd be unlikely to find a box 
with an RF modulator.

> -- 
> Ian

"Robert Wilson"  wrote in message 
news:NI-dnZKxmI7iQv7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>> "Java Jive"  wrote in message 
>> news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>>
>>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>>> from MPs.
>>
>> Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
>>
>>>
>>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
>>
>> A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would 
>> have been far better spent in giving every household in the country a 
>> free set-top box.
>>
> Actually for once you're talking sense.

I always talk sense.

>
> Rob.

In message , Agamemnon 
<agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>
>"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
>news:7LwqhUG2B+YIFwcO@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , 
>>Agamemnon  <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>>>
>>>"Java Jive"  wrote in message 
>>>news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>>>
>>>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>>>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>>>> from MPs.
>>>
>>>Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>>>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
>>>
>>>A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million 
>>>would have been far better spent in giving every household in the 
>>>country a free set-top box.
>>>
>> Only a couple of weeks ago (I think on Radio 4 'Today' programme), 
>>there  was a little old lady complaining that she didn't understand 
>>this digital  thing, and was worried that she would not be able to 
>>watch TV any longer,  as she couldn't afford a new TV set. The 
>>interviewer made absolutely no  attempt to tell her that all she would 
>>need would be a £20 STB.
>
>And a TV with a SCART socket since for £20 you'd be unlikely to find a 
>box with an RF modulator.
>
>> --  Ian

True, true, but are there any TV sets less than (say) ten years old - 
even really cheap ones - which don't have a scart or phono inputs? My 
little £10 Maplin 5" mono set, bought about 3 years ago, has phonos.
-- 
Ian

"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message 
news:xKudnYAZQfQtbf7VnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
> news:7LwqhUG2B+YIFwcO@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , Agamemnon 
>> <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>>>
>>>"Java Jive"  wrote in message 
>>>news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>>>
>>>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>>>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>>>> from MPs.
>>>
>>>Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>>>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
>>>
>>>A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would 
>>>have been far better spent in giving every household in the country a 
>>>free set-top box.
>>>
>> Only a couple of weeks ago (I think on Radio 4 'Today' programme), there 
>> was a little old lady complaining that she didn't understand this digital 
>> thing, and was worried that she would not be able to watch TV any longer, 
>> as she couldn't afford a new TV set. The interviewer made absolutely no 
>> attempt to tell her that all she would need would be a £20 STB.
>
> And a TV with a SCART socket since for £20 you'd be unlikely to find a box 
> with an RF modulator.

Plus we have no way of telling if all the MUXs will be in her existing 
aerial's
passband.

-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

In message <g411g9$jjq$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Graham. 
 writes
>
>
>"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>news:xKudnYAZQfQtbf7VnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>> news:7LwqhUG2B+YIFwcO@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message , Agamemnon
>>> <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>>>>
>>>>"Java Jive"  wrote in message
>>>>news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>>>>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>>>>> from MPs.
>>>>
>>>>Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>>>>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
>>>>
>>>>A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would
>>>>have been far better spent in giving every household in the country a
>>>>free set-top box.
>>>>
>>> Only a couple of weeks ago (I think on Radio 4 'Today' programme), there
>>> was a little old lady complaining that she didn't understand this digital
>>> thing, and was worried that she would not be able to watch TV any longer,
>>> as she couldn't afford a new TV set. The interviewer made absolutely no
>>> attempt to tell her that all she would need would be a £20 STB.
>>
>> And a TV with a SCART socket since for £20 you'd be unlikely to find a box
>> with an RF modulator.
>
>Plus we have no way of telling if all the MUXs will be in her existing
>aerial's
>passband.
>
True, but, as I understand things, it's only a minority of viewers who 
will need a new aerial. [Is there an estimate of the numbers?] However, 
unless she's very unlucky, the one thing she won't need is a new TV set.
-- 
Ian

"Graham."  wrote in message 
news:g411g9$jjq$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Plus we have no way of telling if all the MUXs will be in her existing 
> aerial's
> passband.
After ASO all the PSB muxes will be within the 'historic' group.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
> "Graham."  wrote in message 
> news:g411g9$jjq$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Plus we have no way of telling if all the MUXs will be in her existing 
>> aerial's
>> passband.
> After ASO all the PSB muxes will be within the 'historic' group.

Indeed. That info (thankfully) is available on Ofcom's site:-

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In message , Mark Carver 
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>Bill Wright wrote:
>> "Graham."  wrote in message 
>>news:g411g9$jjq$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Plus we have no way of telling if all the MUXs will be in her 
>>>existing aerial's
>>> passband.
>> After ASO all the PSB muxes will be within the 'historic' group.
>
>Indeed. That info (thankfully) is available on Ofcom's site:-
>
>http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/
>
So, apart from finding a little old man to connect up her £20 STB, the 
little old lady really has nothing to worry about.
-- 
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:

>>> After ASO all the PSB muxes will be within the 'historic' group.
>>
>> Indeed. That info (thankfully) is available on Ofcom's site:-
>>
>> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/
>>
> So, apart from finding a little old man to connect up her £20 STB, the 
> little old lady really has nothing to worry about.

She has nothing to worry about, as long as she receives sound help, 
advice, and services from properly informed people. Unfortunately they 
would appear to be in short supply.

Mark Carver wrote:
> Bill Wright wrote:
>> "Graham."  wrote in message 
>> news:g411g9$jjq$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Plus we have no way of telling if all the MUXs will be in her 
>>> existing aerial's
>>> passband.
>> After ASO all the PSB muxes will be within the 'historic' group.
> 
> Indeed. That info (thankfully) is available on Ofcom's site:-
> 
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/
> 
> 
Hi,
I am on the Kerry relay on page 7 of the Wales document.  We currently 
get four analogue channels, Beeb1 and 1, ITV1 Wales, and S4C.  Why will 
they not give us four mux's when DSO has completed?

Cheers,

Rob.

Robert Wilson wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:
>> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/
>>
>>
> Hi,
> I am on the Kerry relay on page 7 of the Wales document.  We currently 
> get four analogue channels, Beeb1 and 1, ITV1 Wales, and S4C.  Why will 
> they not give us four mux's when DSO has completed?

Because Ofcom are selling off UHF channels 31-35, 37,39,40, and 63-68. 
Kerry currently uses 21,24,27,31. The first three are to be reallocated 
for three PSB DTT muxes post DSO. The forth is channel 31, part of 
Ofcom's great sale.

There is not enough spectrum to transmit all six muxes from all 1154 
transmitters, but even if there was it wouldn't be economically viable 
for the COM mux operators to equip them. In fact, the COM operators will 
  only be extending their coverage to one more transmitter from the 
current 81 sites, that's Fremont Point on Jersey.

However those three PSB muxes will give you, initially BBC-1, BBC-2, 
ITV-1, C4 (UK), S4C, C5, and most of those broadcaster's additional 
services (BBC News Channel, ITV-2, BBC-4 etc). Plus after 2009, three or 
four HD services.

Mark Carver wrote:
> Robert Wilson wrote:
>> Mark Carver wrote:
>>> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/
>>>
>>>
>> Hi,
>> I am on the Kerry relay on page 7 of the Wales document.  We currently 
>> get four analogue channels, Beeb1 and 1, ITV1 Wales, and S4C.  Why 
>> will they not give us four mux's when DSO has completed?
> 
> Because Ofcom are selling off UHF channels 31-35, 37,39,40, and 63-68. 
> Kerry currently uses 21,24,27,31. The first three are to be reallocated 
> for three PSB DTT muxes post DSO. The forth is channel 31, part of 
> Ofcom's great sale.
> 
> There is not enough spectrum to transmit all six muxes from all 1154 
> transmitters, but even if there was it wouldn't be economically viable 
> for the COM mux operators to equip them. In fact, the COM operators will 
>  only be extending their coverage to one more transmitter from the 
> current 81 sites, that's Fremont Point on Jersey.
> 
> However those three PSB muxes will give you, initially BBC-1, BBC-2, 
> ITV-1, C4 (UK), S4C, C5, and most of those broadcaster's additional 
> services (BBC News Channel, ITV-2, BBC-4 etc). Plus after 2009, three or 
> four HD services.
Well in that light it does'nt look too bad.  Most of the COM seervices 
are home shopping, but am disappointed to nto be getting Virgon and the 
UKTV channels though.  Am I right on this point or amd I wrong?

Cheers,

Rob.

Robert Wilson wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:

>> However those three PSB muxes will give you, initially BBC-1, BBC-2, 
>> ITV-1, C4 (UK), S4C, C5, and most of those broadcaster's additional 
>> services (BBC News Channel, ITV-2, BBC-4 etc). Plus after 2009, three 
>> or four HD services.

> Well in that light it does'nt look too bad.  Most of the COM seervices 
> are home shopping, but am disappointed to nto be getting Virgon and the 
> UKTV channels though.  Am I right on this point or amd I wrong?

Well, as they say; you don't miss what you've never had.  ;-)

Agamemnon wrote:
> 
> "Java Jive"  wrote in message 
> news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>
>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>> from MPs.
> 
> Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
> 
>>
>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
> 
> A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would 
> have been far better spent in giving every household in the country a 
> free set-top box.
> 

Hmm. 20 quid a box, gives 10 million boxes.

there's around 20 million households in britain, so that's around
half the number you'd need.

On might argue, however, that giving away that many
would also generate publicity...

   BugBear

bugbear wrote:
|| Agamemnon wrote:
|||
||| "Java Jive"  wrote in message
||| news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
|||| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
||||
|||| "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they
|||| will soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a
|||| report from MPs.
|||
||| Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
|||
||||
|||| A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand
|||| the implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m
|||| campaign."
|||
||| A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million
||| would have been far better spent in giving every household in the
||| country a free set-top box.
|||
||
|| Hmm. 20 quid a box, gives 10 million boxes.
||
|| there's around 20 million households in britain, so that's around
|| half the number you'd need.
||

That's assuming that with that kind of purchasing power they wouldn't get 
more than a healthy discount:)


|| On might argue, however, that giving away that many
|| would also generate publicity...
||
||   BugBear

Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
> Only a couple of weeks ago (I think on Radio 4 'Today' programme), there 
> was a little old lady complaining that she didn't understand this 
> digital thing, and was worried that she would not be able to watch TV 
> any longer, as she couldn't afford a new TV set. The interviewer made 
> absolutely no attempt to tell her that all she would need would be a £20 
> STB.

And possible a new aerial install?

Guy

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:06:44 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In message <g411g9$jjq$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Graham. 
> writes
>>
>>
>>"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>>news:xKudnYAZQfQtbf7VnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>
>>> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>>> news:7LwqhUG2B+YIFwcO@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message , Agamemnon
>>>> <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>"Java Jive"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:7jg764dbj8mhkn596s533mg06d164reqhi@4ax.com...
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>>>>>> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>>>>>> from MPs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why isn't anything being done to stop people selling them?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
>>>>>> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
>>>>>
>>>>>A complete and utter waste of tax-payers money. The £200 million would
>>>>>have been far better spent in giving every household in the country a
>>>>>free set-top box.
>>>>>
>>>> Only a couple of weeks ago (I think on Radio 4 'Today' programme), there
>>>> was a little old lady complaining that she didn't understand this digital
>>>> thing, and was worried that she would not be able to watch TV any longer,
>>>> as she couldn't afford a new TV set. The interviewer made absolutely no
>>>> attempt to tell her that all she would need would be a £20 STB.
>>>
>>> And a TV with a SCART socket since for £20 you'd be unlikely to find a box
>>> with an RF modulator.
>>
>>Plus we have no way of telling if all the MUXs will be in her existing
>>aerial's
>>passband.
>>
>True, but, as I understand things, it's only a minority of viewers who 
>will need a new aerial. [Is there an estimate of the numbers?] However, 
>unless she's very unlucky, the one thing she won't need is a new TV set.

As I understand it a lot of people will need a new aeriel if they want
freeview before switchover but not after since they will revert to
re-using the same frequencies as analogue used.

-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

In message , Bigguy 
 writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>> Only a couple of weeks ago (I think on Radio 4 'Today' programme), 
>>there  was a little old lady complaining that she didn't understand 
>>this digital thing, and was worried that she would not be able to 
>>watch TV any longer, as she couldn't afford a new TV set. The 
>>interviewer made absolutely no attempt to tell her that all she would 
>>need would be a £20  STB.
>
>And possible a new aerial install?
>
>Guy

As it has been pointed out, after DSO, all the digital signals will be 
in the original aerial grouping. Assuming that the analogue reception 
has been OK, there should be no need for a new aerial.
-- 
Ian

Agamemnon wrote:

> And a TV with a SCART socket since for £20 you'd be unlikely to find a 
> box with an RF modulator.
> 

Close though. This one has a modulator - now £29 quid in ALDI
<http://www.tvonics.com/mfr200.html>

Problem is 'little old lady' has no one telling her about it.

-- 
Adrian C

On 27 Jun., 10:15, Mark Carver <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Robert Wilson wrote:
> > Mark Carver wrote:
> >>http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/
>
> > Hi,
> > I am on the Kerry relay on page 7 of the Wales document.  We currently
> > get four analogue channels, Beeb1 and 1, ITV1 Wales, and S4C.  Why will
> > they not give us four mux's when DSO has completed?
>
> Because Ofcom are selling off UHF channels 31-35, 37,39,40, and 63-68.
>
NOT true. Ofcom has urged the 2 COM MUX  operators
to extend there coverage to most or all relays.
>
The COM MUXes did not find that economically attractive.
They only wanted to transmit from the 80/81 current
transmitters, but with increased power.
>
"We also note that Ofcom would be keen to
assist any application from any of the commercial
multiplex operators to extend the coverage of their
multiplexes." /Ofcom 6.40 dttfuture consultation
>
Lars  :-)

On 26 Jun., 18:23, Java Jive  wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>
> "Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
> soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
> from MPs.
>
> A parliamentary report claims that many viewers do not understand the
> implications of the digital switchover, despite a £200m campaign."
>
But it is the wise thing to do, if your area
has no digital coverage.
The £20 STB  will be there next year or
in 2012 it that is when its time for DSO.
>
But the the new DVB-T2 standard, that will  bring
3 HDTV programs to Freeview  from DSO, will need
a new box anyway. If you do not need a DVB-T
receiver just now - then your are much better off waiting
to late next year or 2010 when DVB-T2 STB will be
in the shops.

Lars :-)

PS! Such 'little stupid lady' stories are very often
political  manipulations or even worse.

reslfj@gmail.com wrote:
> On 27 Jun., 10:15, Mark Carver <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> Because Ofcom are selling off UHF channels 31-35, 37,39,40, and 63-68.
>>
> NOT true. 

So are you saying Ofcom are not selling off that spectrum ?

Got a URL to Ofcom that says that ?

> Ofcom has urged the 2 COM MUX  operators
> to extend there coverage to most or all relays.
> The COM MUXes did not find that economically attractive.
> They only wanted to transmit from the 80/81 current
> transmitters, but with increased power.

I attended a speech by Greg Bensburg, Principal Advisor of Broadcasting 
at Ofcom only two days ago where he stated that currently the COM muxes 
will only be available from 81 sites giving 90% population coverage.
For 98.5% coverage (parity with analogue) you need 1150 sites.

> "We also note that Ofcom would be keen to
> assist any application from any of the commercial
> multiplex operators to extend the coverage of their
> multiplexes." /Ofcom 6.40 dttfuture consultation

Again, post the URL so we can read that in context. I really can't see 
the COM operators extending beyond a 100 or so sites, it simply won't be 
economic for them.

On 27 Jun., 15:06, Mark Carver <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> res...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 27 Jun., 10:15, Mark Carver <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Because Ofcom are selling off UHF channels 31-35, 37,39,40, and 63-68.
>
> > NOT true.
>
> So are you saying Ofcom are not selling off that spectrum ?
>
> Got a URL to Ofcom that says that ?
>
But the lack of  COM MUXes at the 1100
relays are not due to this sale - not at all.
There are are enough channels for the COM
MUXes.
 >
> > Ofcom has urged the 2 COM MUX  operators
> > to extend there coverage to most or all relays.
> > The COM MUXes did not find that economically attractive.
> > They only wanted to transmit from the 80/81 current
> > transmitters, but with increased power.
>
> I attended a speech by Greg Bensburg, Principal Advisor of Broadcasting
> at Ofcom only two days ago where he stated that currently the COM muxes
> will only be available from 81 sites giving 90% population coverage.
> For 98.5% coverage (parity with analogue) you need 1150 sites.
>
But the COM MUXes had a deadline - last year, I think -
to inform Ofcom.
The answer was  80/81 sites only.
>
> > ... multiplexes." /Ofcom 6.40 dttfuture consultation
>
> Again, post the URL so we can read that in context. I really can't see
> the COM operators extending beyond a 100 or so sites, it simply won't be
> economic for them.
>
The text "Ofcom 6.40 dttfuture consultation" into Google
gave the first answer  line:
www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/dttfuture/dttfuture.pdf

So I will say, I did post the URL.

Lars :-)

There is a lot to be said - good and bad - about
the sale of the spectrum - but this is NOT it.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6cjn4jF3ds3d0U1@mid.individual.net...
> Well, as they say; you don't miss what you've never had.  ;-)

I missed sex terribly until I got my first girlfriend . . .

Bill

reslfj@gmail.com wrote:
> On 27 Jun., 15:06, Mark Carver <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Because Ofcom are selling off UHF channels 31-35, 37,39,40, and 63-68.
>>> NOT true.
>> So are you saying Ofcom are not selling off that spectrum ?
>>
>> Got a URL to Ofcom that says that ?
>>
> But the lack of  COM MUXes at the 1100
> relays are not due to this sale - not at all.
> There are are enough channels for the COM
> MUXes.

Well, I'm not sure about that. There's only just enough room for four 
analogue channels, with the full current UHF range. Adding in another 
two 8 MHz allocations per site might not be easy in some areas, never 
mind doing that with the removal of 14 of the available 44 channels. 
Although of course the lower protection ratios for DTT, and the use of 
SFNs would help.

I was responding in the context of the OP's question on why his present 
four analogue channels are not being replaced by four DTT muxes, so I 
wasn't very clear, and you're right what I said isn't strictly true.


>> Again, post the URL so we can read that in context. I really can't see
>> the COM operators extending beyond a 100 or so sites, it simply won't be
>> economic for them.
>>
> The text "Ofcom 6.40 dttfuture consultation" into Google
> gave the first answer  line:
> www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/dttfuture/dttfuture.pdf
> 
> So I will say, I did post the URL.

Fair game. Thank you.

In message , Adrian C 
<email@here.invalid> writes
>Agamemnon wrote:
>
>> And a TV with a SCART socket since for £20 you'd be unlikely to find 
>>a box with an RF modulator.
>>
>
>Close though. This one has a modulator - now £29 quid in ALDI
><http://www.tvonics.com/mfr200.html>
>
>Problem is 'little old lady' has no one telling her about it.
>
I may be wrong, but I think that they recoup some of the cost of the 
modulator by not providing any form of AV output. Am I wrong?
-- 
Ian

"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
news:FNydnRt_Bd4AavnVnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@pipex.net...
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:6cjn4jF3ds3d0U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Well, as they say; you don't miss what you've never had.  ;-)
>
> I missed sex terribly until I got my first girlfriend . . .
> Bill
>
No you didn't, what you mean is your right hand missed you
after you got a girlfriend

Steve Terry

Ian Jackson wrote:
> I may be wrong, but I think that they recoup some of the cost of the 
> modulator by not providing any form of AV output. Am I wrong?

Nope. AV output (Stereo sound & CVBS) is available on a 2.5mm 4-pole socket.

Manual here <http://www.tvonics.com/images/mfr200im.pdf>

-- 
Adrian C

"Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
news:g43pmr$chs$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
> news:FNydnRt_Bd4AavnVnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@pipex.net...
>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:6cjn4jF3ds3d0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Well, as they say; you don't miss what you've never had.  ;-)
>>
>> I missed sex terribly until I got my first girlfriend . . .
>> Bill
>>
> No you didn't, what you mean is your right hand missed you
> after you got a girlfriend

At about 14 I switched to the left to avoid RSI.

Bill

"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
news:bLWdnaWYr_Uk6_jVnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
> news:g43pmr$chs$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
>> news:FNydnRt_Bd4AavnVnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@pipex.net...
>>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:6cjn4jF3ds3d0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Well, as they say; you don't miss what you've never had.  ;-)
>>>
>>> I missed sex terribly until I got my first girlfriend . . .
>>> Bill
>>>
>> No you didn't, what you mean is your right hand missed you
>> after you got a girlfriend
>
> At about 14 I switched to the left to avoid RSI.
>
> Bill
>


Come on Bill, RSI wasn't even a glimmer in its grandfathers eye when you 
were 14!!


-- 
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

In message , Adrian C 
<email@here.invalid> writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I may be wrong, but I think that they recoup some of the cost of the 
>>modulator by not providing any form of AV output. Am I wrong?
>
>Nope. AV output (Stereo sound & CVBS) is available on a 2.5mm 4-pole socket.
>
>Manual here <http://www.tvonics.com/images/mfr200im.pdf>
>
Ah, I thought there was something 'different' about this unit.

Unfortunately, the lead is non-standard (well, the 2.5mm connector is). 
It's an optional extra, and has to be ordered separately. [There is also 
an optional RC (which enables Audio Description) and IR receiver 
extender.] While you could make up your own AV lead, this type of 
connector is not something which you are likely to have in your junk 
box. Otherwise, it looks a nice little unit, and eminently suitable for 
little old ladies with ancient TV sets which may - or may not - have an 
AV input!
-- 
Ian

"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
news:bLWdnaWYr_Uk6_jVnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
> news:g43pmr$chs$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
>> news:FNydnRt_Bd4AavnVnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@pipex.net...
>>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:6cjn4jF3ds3d0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Well, as they say; you don't miss what you've never had.  ;-)
>>>
>>> I missed sex terribly until I got my first girlfriend . . .
>>> Bill
>>>
>> No you didn't, what you mean is your right hand missed you
>> after you got a girlfriend
>
> At about 14 I switched to the left to avoid RSI.

I thought it was usually after 99.

-- 
Max Demian

In message , Ian Jackson 
 writes
>In message , Adrian C 
><email@here.invalid> writes
>>Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> I may be wrong, but I think that they recoup some of the cost of the 
>>>modulator by not providing any form of AV output. Am I wrong?
>>
>>Nope. AV output (Stereo sound & CVBS) is available on a 2.5mm 4-pole socket.
>>
>>Manual here <http://www.tvonics.com/images/mfr200im.pdf>
>>
>Ah, I thought there was something 'different' about this unit.
>
>Unfortunately, the lead is non-standard (well, the 2.5mm connector is). 
>It's an optional extra, and has to be ordered separately. [There is 
>also an optional RC (which enables Audio Description) and IR receiver 
>extender.] While you could make up your own AV lead, this type of 
>connector is not something which you are likely to have in your junk 
>box. Otherwise, it looks a nice little unit, and eminently suitable for 
>little old ladies with ancient TV sets which may - or may not - have an 
>AV input!

Having checked the TVonics website. These seem to be Sony products.

I see that the AV lead is £7.99. As it has phono connectors at the TV 
end, you might need a phono-to-scart adaptor. [Maplin do Sony and 
Panasonic camcorder versions for the same price.] As the TV could easily 
have no phono inputs (scart only), you're going to need a phono-to scart 
adaptor (Maplin price £7.99). So, there's a good chance that you £40 STB 
is going to cost you £55, unless you stay with the RF connection to the 
TV set.

The MFR-200 is £39.99, and there's also an MFR-300 for a massive £69.99. 
 From the information given, at first sight I can't see what the 
difference is, [Any ideas what the differences might be?] And (I think) 
the MFR-300 still doesn't include an AV lead.
-- 
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:

  unless you stay with the RF connection to the
> TV set.

The suggestion is that this is only really marketed for the little old 
lady's set with  _only_ an RF connection, not SCART where a cheaper box 
would suffice.

AV connections, although provided on that (expensive) connector, are 
really there for high tech stuff that Gladys simply gave up trying to 
understand years ago. So the lead is optional.

The MFR-200 (with a standard remote) is £29 at my local ALDI. The 
MFR-300 has an enhanced remote control and that package offers audio 
description. You can buy the enhanced remote for £25 (gulp) from TVonics 
and that will effectively convert the MFR-200 to the MFR-300.

Prices are coming down all the time. I suspect for the next couple of 
years we are not too far from the set-top box for a fiver, from the like 
of ASDA and co.

-- 
Adrian C

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:23:11 +0100, Adrian C <email@here.invalid>
wrote:

>The suggestion is that this is only really marketed for the little old 
>lady's set with  _only_ an RF connection, not SCART where a cheaper box 
>would suffice.

Perhaps someone should bring out a box with the only output the 5
terestrial stations on a RF connection (on their current UHF
channels). Just plug it in between the TV and ariel, no extra remote
control, totaly "little old lady" proof.

In message , Adrian C 
<email@here.invalid> writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> unless you stay with the RF connection to the
>> TV set.
>
>The suggestion is that this is only really marketed for the little old 
>lady's set with  _only_ an RF connection, not SCART where a cheaper box 
>would suffice.
>
>AV connections, although provided on that (expensive) connector, are 
>really there for high tech stuff that Gladys simply gave up trying to 
>understand years ago. So the lead is optional.
>
>The MFR-200 (with a standard remote) is £29 at my local ALDI. The 
>MFR-300 has an enhanced remote control and that package offers audio 
>description. You can buy the enhanced remote for £25 (gulp) from 
>TVonics and that will effectively convert the MFR-200 to the MFR-300.
>
>Prices are coming down all the time. I suspect for the next couple of 
>years we are not too far from the set-top box for a fiver, from the 
>like of ASDA and co.
>
I see. So the MFR-300 is simply the MFR-200 with the enhanced RC 
included in the price.

However, the TVonics prices don't quite tie up. The MFR-200 is ~£40 from 
TVonics (although only ~£30 at your Aldi) and the Audio Description 
Remote Control is ~£25 (total TVonics price £65). The MFR-300 is ~£70. 
Perhaps they also include the AV lead (~£8), and maybe also the Remote 
Control Extender (£9). Presumably they will save a bit of money by not 
providing the standard RC.
-- 
Ian

mcp@nildram.co.uk wrote:

> Perhaps someone should bring out a box with the only output the 5
> terestrial stations on a RF connection (on their current UHF
> channels). Just plug it in between the TV and ariel, no extra remote
> control, totaly "little old lady" proof.

Yes, I've thought exactly that as well. But it would be expensive as is 
most low volume special needs stuff.

For example the following site offers mobile phones designed for the 
elderly (and why not everyone that is not a schoolkid). They are a bit 
on the costly side for limited functionality, when Pay-as-you-go phones 
are a tenner a throw in the high street.

http://www.easytousephones.com/

-- 
Adrian C

In article , Adrian C wrote:
> For example the following site offers mobile phones designed for the 
> elderly (and why not everyone that is not a schoolkid). They are a bit 
> on the costly side for limited functionality, when Pay-as-you-go phones 
> are a tenner a throw in the high street.
> 
> http://www.easytousephones.com/

What an excellent idea, though I agree it's wrong to brand the elderly as 
if they were the only people who might just want a simple phone, or who 
are by implication too stupid to handle all the unneccessary gizmos that 
most ordinary phones are full of. It seems far from stupid to want a piece 
of equipment that is simply well designed for one purpose. The phones 
themselves don't seem to be named in ways that suggest anything to do with 
old or disabled people, so it should only be necessary to whittle it out 
of the sales pitch. And adjust the price of course.

Rod.

Java Jive  wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7473807.stm
>
>"Many people are still buying analogue TV sets unaware that they will
>soon need extra equipment to make them work, according to a report
>from MPs.

Most people simply don't *need* to know every detail of technology, and
in the case of TVs, they'd probably only need to know some details once
every five years when they buy stuff.  And it *isn't* simple.  There's a
confusing mix of names for the various services, often with subtle
distinctions. Even with just DTT, you've got all kinds of labels on TVs:
Freeview, DVB, Digital-tickmark, "receives 30 digital channels", which
all mean the same thing in that context.

Have you seen some of the stickers on TVs in showrooms?  Some run all the
way down the side of the screen, listing a couple of dozen acronyms.  How
are consumers supposed to know which out of that lot are critical?

And a much bigger problem is analogue DVD recorders -- most of those will
probably end up dumped.  Some combinations of STB and DVDR allow you to
control the DVDR from the STB's EPG, but even then there's gotchas with
the scart cable arrangement.

Seems that the Public Accounts Committee have a vaguely worded intent to
increase the implementation of the Digital-tickmark logo to 90% by the
end of 2008, probably by just hoping that it will happen.  Here's the
original report:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/416/416.pdf

My petition for mandated labels has 111 signatures, but there's no chance
of getting to the 200 signature level that would warrant a response in
its final week.  Pity.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/analogue-warn/

The Americans knew that a mandated notice would be necessary if people
were to understand the issues.  They might go over the top with some of
their consumer protection ideas, but I think that they were right in this
case.  The notice is at the bottom of this leaflet:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvlabels.html

-- 
Dave Farrance