I've got one Freeview box at home, in addition to Sky TV but only so I can
watch Sky TV whilst my Dad watches on of the 3 News Channels on Freeview.

But what is the techincal deal with Freeview?

a) What is the maximum number of channels it is possible to have on Freeview
all at once? I should say TV channels not teletext, games or radio.

b) If they turn off the analouge channels 1 to 5 how many extra channels
could we then have through Freeview?

I'm worried that we have idiots in Parliment that don't even know how to
replace a fuse deciding on the future of the one of the most important
communication mediums on the planet - i.e. the TV set - the same idiots who
thought spending a Billion pound of our money to build a tent in Greenwich
and then charge us £20 to go see it was a good idea..

lets face it policitians are mainly idiots when it comes to creating things
and I don't think they have a clue about anything .. in fact I know the wife
of one MP and if she's anything to go by her husband must be really thick!!

if Digital TV is so important why are we messing about with set-top boxes?

Why not just pass a law that says for instance within 2 years every TV and
VCR sold in the UK must have a digital tuner/decoder instead of the analouge
one?

I'm getting fed up with the need to buy one set-top box for every single TV
in the house - and ones with the decoder built in cost a bomb!!

Why not make it a standard and then every manufacturer will be competing
against each other on a level digital playing field.

I think the biggest floor in the Freeview system is that it is totally
free - which stop inovators from pushing the technology forward. The Samsung
Freeview box I have has no slot at all for any kind of smart card - so if in
the future Sky TV for instance wanted to broadcast paid for sports channels
there's no way they could do it unless they supplied a different box or some
kind of add on decoder.

I've got a horrible feeling in some ways Freeview is doomed from the start.

lets face it policitians are mainly idiots when it comes to creating
things
and I don't think they have a clue about anything ..

Look there are only two types of money there is your money and there is
someone else's.
There are only two ways of spending it, either on yourself or someone else.
There are two criteria in spending money : quality and price.

This means that there are four types of expenditu

1) You spend your money on yourself
This is pocket money you are quite concerned about price but your main
concern is quality.

2) You spend your money on someone else
This is gifts. You want good quality but price is important too.

3) You spend someone else's money on yourself
This is the expense account. You want the best quality and don't give a damn
about the cost.

4) You spend someone else's money on someone else
This is what politicians do.
So is it little wonder that they don't give a s**t about the quality or the
cost?

Steve ( stolen from PJ O' Rourke)

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:04:29 +0100, "DeeInLondon"
wrote:

I've got one Freeview box at home, in addition to Sky TV but only so I can
watch Sky TV whilst my Dad watches on of the 3 News Channels on Freeview.

Yep, that's the way it works.

But what is the techincal deal with Freeview?

a) What is the maximum number of channels it is possible to have on Freeview
all at once? I should say TV channels not teletext, games or radio.

There's six multiplexes, and each can support four TV channels at a
passable bitrate. So in theory there could be twenty-four
tolerable-quality channels available simultaneously.

The amount of bandwidth used by radio and text is tiny compared to a
TV channel, so doing away with them all wouldn't gain you more than
one or two extra channels.

b) If they turn off the analouge channels 1 to 5 how many extra channels
could we then have through Freeview?

There's a number of options, but the simplest would be five more
multiplexes, so twenty more channels.

if Digital TV is so important why are we messing about with set-top boxes?

Because there's a huge installed base of analogue TVs which people
would rather uprgrade than replace.

Why not just pass a law that says for instance within 2 years every TV and
VCR sold in the UK must have a digital tuner/decoder instead of the analouge
one?

It's been explained here that such a law would be illegal under EU
free trade regulations.

I'm getting fed up with the need to buy one set-top box for every single TV
in the house - and ones with the decoder built in cost a bomb!!

Well, exactly. If your proposed law was passed, you'd only be able to
buy ones that "cost a bomb".

Why not make it a standard and then every manufacturer will be competing
against each other on a level digital playing field.

See above.

I think the biggest floor in the Freeview system is that it is totally
free - which stop inovators from pushing the technology forward.

Sorry, I don't follow. Analogue TV has been free for the past
fifty-plus years, but a modern TV is far more advanced than those of
the 1950s.

The Samsung Freeview box I have has no slot at all for any kind of smart card

OK, so it's a lot like a FTA digital satellite receiver.

so if in the future Sky TV for instance wanted to broadcast paid for sports
channels there's no way they could do it unless they supplied a different box
or some kind of add on decoder.

Yes, just like they already do for pay satellite services.

I've got a horrible feeling in some ways Freeview is doomed from the start.

I strongly suggest you do some research in future before posting
unsupported opinions to a forum such as this. Or is the concept of
"lurking" alien to you?

--
QrizB

I sound like I know what I'm talking about, but don't
be fooled.

"DeeInLondon" wrote in message
...
I've got one Freeview box at home, in addition to Sky TV but only so I can
watch Sky TV whilst my Dad watches on of the 3 News Channels on Freeview.

But what is the techincal deal with Freeview?

a) What is the maximum number of channels it is possible to have on
Freeview
all at once? I should say TV channels not teletext, games or radio.

b) If they turn off the analouge channels 1 to 5 how many extra channels
could we then have through Freeview?

I'm worried that we have idiots in Parliment that don't even know how to
replace a fuse deciding on the future of the one of the most important
communication mediums on the planet - i.e. the TV set - the same idiots
who
thought spending a Billion pound of our money to build a tent in Greenwich
and then charge us £20 to go see it was a good idea..

lets face it policitians are mainly idiots when it comes to creating
things
and I don't think they have a clue about anything .. in fact I know the
wife
of one MP and if she's anything to go by her husband must be really
thick!!

if Digital TV is so important why are we messing about with set-top boxes?

Why not just pass a law that says for instance within 2 years every TV and
VCR sold in the UK must have a digital tuner/decoder instead of the
analouge
one?

I'm getting fed up with the need to buy one set-top box for every single
TV
in the house - and ones with the decoder built in cost a bomb!!

Why not make it a standard and then every manufacturer will be competing
against each other on a level digital playing field.

I think the biggest floor in the Freeview system is that it is totally
free - which stop inovators from pushing the technology forward. The
Samsung
Freeview box I have has no slot at all for any kind of smart card - so if
in
the future Sky TV for instance wanted to broadcast paid for sports
channels
there's no way they could do it unless they supplied a different box or
some
kind of add on decoder.

I've got a horrible feeling in some ways Freeview is doomed from the
start.





Any quality weaknesses where built in when the original digital franchise
was being put together in the 80's. The "conservative" goverment had simple
choice. Go for high quality HDTV with few channels requiring developent
largely through the BBC and taxpayers/licence fee money. Or let the market
fund development and let the market decide what they would be willing to pay
a license to develop. And so we got ONdigital, lots of channels to create
revenue, but limited to 625 line and anamorphic PAL for widescreen.

"DeeInLondon" wrote in message
...
I've got one Freeview box at home, in addition to Sky TV but only so I can
watch Sky TV whilst my Dad watches on of the 3 News Channels on Freeview.

But what is the techincal deal with Freeview?

a) What is the maximum number of channels it is possible to have on Freeview
all at once? I should say TV channels not teletext, games or radio.

b) If they turn off the analouge channels 1 to 5 how many extra channels
could we then have through Freeview?

I'm worried that we have idiots in Parliment that don't even know how to
replace a fuse deciding on the future of the one of the most important
communication mediums on the planet - i.e. the TV set - the same idiots who
thought spending a Billion pound of our money to build a tent in Greenwich
and then charge us £20 to go see it was a good idea..

lets face it policitians are mainly idiots when it comes to creating things
and I don't think they have a clue about anything .. in fact I know the wife
of one MP and if she's anything to go by her husband must be really thick!!

if Digital TV is so important why are we messing about with set-top boxes?

Why not just pass a law that says for instance within 2 years every TV and
VCR sold in the UK must have a digital tuner/decoder instead of the analouge
one?

I'm getting fed up with the need to buy one set-top box for every single TV
in the house - and ones with the decoder built in cost a bomb!!

Why not make it a standard and then every manufacturer will be competing
against each other on a level digital playing field.

I think the biggest floor in the Freeview system is that it is totally
free - which stop inovators from pushing the technology forward. The Samsung
Freeview box I have has no slot at all for any kind of smart card - so if in
the future Sky TV for instance wanted to broadcast paid for sports channels
there's no way they could do it unless they supplied a different box or some
kind of add on decoder.

I've got a horrible feeling in some ways Freeview is doomed from the start.




That last statement the "Freeview is doomed" is totally flawed, just look at
the take-up of Freeview boxes, it's in 1.6 million homes, see
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds11277.html
Mike.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 30-Jun-03

That last statement the "Freeview is doomed" is totally flawed, just look at
the take-up of Freeview boxes, it's in 1.6 million homes, see
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds11277.html
Mike.


That means nothing. Look back at the take-up of 126 cartridge cameras...

QrizB writes
I'm getting fed up with the need to buy one set-top box for every single TV
in the house - and ones with the decoder built in cost a bomb!!

Well, exactly. If your proposed law was passed, you'd only be able to
buy ones that "cost a bomb".

Of course, the cost would then fall due to the economies of scale.
Whether or not the retail price would fall is a different matter.

It would be interesting if we were able to find out how much of the
extra cost of an IDTV is due to higher cost of manufacture - and how
much of it is 'premium pricing' for a (perceived) 'premium product'?

--
Dave

DeeInLondon writes
I think the biggest floor in the Freeview system is that it is totally
free - which stop inovators from pushing the technology forward.

Did you ever hear of ONdigital or ITV Digital?

The Samsung Freeview box I have has no slot at all for any kind of
smart card - so if in the future Sky TV for instance wanted to
broadcast paid for sports channels there's no way they could do it
unless they supplied a different box or some kind of add on decoder.

See above.

I've got a horrible feeling in some ways Freeview is doomed from the start.

More than 800,000 Freeview boxes were sold in the first 8 months. Plus
another 900,000 or so old ITV Digital boxes still available for use.

That's a lot of people able to watch DTT.

--
Dave

"QrizB" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:04:29 +0100, "DeeInLondon"
wrote:

I've got one Freeview box at home, in addition to Sky TV but only so I can
watch Sky TV whilst my Dad watches on of the 3 News Channels on Freeview.

Yep, that's the way it works.

But what is the techincal deal with Freeview?

a) What is the maximum number of channels it is possible to have on Freeview
all at once? I should say TV channels not teletext, games or radio.

There's six multiplexes, and each can support four TV channels at a
passable bitrate. So in theory there could be twenty-four
tolerable-quality channels available simultaneously.

The two 64QAM muxes can accommodate five channels, whether any of it is deemed
tolerable is another matter. BBC Two for instance is largely intolerable.

Az.

"Stuart" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
news
QrizB writes
I'm getting fed up with the need to buy one set-top box for every
single
TV
in the house - and ones with the decoder built in cost a bomb!!

Well, exactly. If your proposed law was passed, you'd only be able to
buy ones that "cost a bomb".

Of course, the cost would then fall due to the economies of scale.
Whether or not the retail price would fall is a different matter.

It would be interesting if we were able to find out how much of the
extra cost of an IDTV is due to higher cost of manufacture - and how
much of it is 'premium pricing' for a (perceived) 'premium product'?

Well the increase cost has to be substantially less than that of a STB.
Yet
the premium is several times the sales amount. If Sony can get this, good
luck to them, but isn't it strange in a supposedly competitive market no
one
has challenged this?

Even more strangely I went to buy one of those neat 17" widescreen LCD
TV's
(because we find current widescreen TV's too big & ugly for our living
room
and bedroom). "Oh yes they are multi-channel so they can pick up french TV
the salesman oozed". So BBC4 is no problem I asked.

"Oh no - it is analogue only". Hey he expects me to pay £600/800 for a
premium product because it looks neat - then have to plug in an external
box
for Sky or Freeview so I can watch what my licence money pays for.

"Doesn't that rather spoil the concept of a neat small form factor TV" I
asked. "I didn't think of that". Well neither did the manufacturers I
guess
as I walked away money unspent.

Strange world...

--
Stuart

You have to pay for style! These are now called "lifestyle" products. What
does that mean? It sounds like it's for people who don't judge products by
function but by form. Most people buy products by price, many then buy
products by performance. Only a few buy products by style so as a minority
group they have to pay more. I don't think the guy who can only afford a
silver box in the corner would like being forced to pay more so that you can
pay less.