• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Sign the petition before 19th March (tomorrow)

magistral

Inactive User
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
32
Likes
0
#1
When the analogue TV transmissions are ended in 2012 everyone was hoping that the spectrum bandwidth released would allow sufficient bandwidth for Freeview to offer lots of HD channels.

However, it seems that the government wants to auction off the bandwidth to the highest bidder like it did with the 3g 'phone bandwidth. If this happens it will be snapped up by the mobile 'phone operators and Freeview will be stuffed.

In my opinion, if Freeview can't cant offer the majority of its channels in HD after 2012 it will wither and die as all those that can, will switch to satellite or cable in order to make use of their HD TV sets and get superior quality video.

It may be a futile exercise but there is a petition on the Government's
e-petition web site. There's only about 1700 or so signatures so far and it closes tomorrow but I guess it would be worthwhile adding a few more.

The BBC , Channel Four anf Five all want the bandwidth to go for Freeview use but the government doesn't seem to want to listen.

If you would like to sign it go to:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/CitizensSpectrum/

Mike
:FRIGHT:
 

pinkhelmets

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2001
Messages
5,187
Likes
89
#2
My view is the petition wont make any difference whatsoever, the government dont listen.
My next view is also that freeview is destined to 'wither and die' anyway, since it will never be fully available to the whole country only 'most'. HD broadcasting by terrrestrial is just such a waste of bandwidth & at such high costs. I wont be signing the petition, I'd rather the bandwidth gained the extra money and industry growth and reduce broadcasters interests in freeview. The licence fee pays for a simple basic terrestrial service, if you want more than that ~if you want superior quality video, ~if you want more choice, then pay & change to a different service.
I'd like to see the broadcasters invest more in broadband tv, satellite tv, cable networks, electricity network broadcasting, newer inventions etc etc.
Freeview will always be too limited so I vote for it to wither and die :). Give it all to private amatuer & local tv hobbyists, thats a much better idea.
 

magistral

Inactive User
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
32
Likes
0
#3
A fair point of view but the chance of these frequencies going to radio amateurs and hobbyists is even more remote than them being retained for freeview given the millions the chancellor will get from an auction. I am a radio amateur myself so I know that they would jump at such an offer.

I'm puzzled by your view that Freeview is a waste of bandwidth. It is capable of HD broadcasting and a terrestrial channel wouldn't use any more of the spectrum than say satellite channel - it's just a different part of the spectrum. Also the infra-structure to broadcast it already exists. However, I take your point that it doesn't provide complete coverage but neither does cable. Satellite gives complete coverage and I did see a proposal by BBC to start their own freesat service. I think that maybe that would be a better solution if only to prevent Sky monopolising broadcasting.
 

digidude

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
24,610
Likes
229
#4
is it really worth signing it? 1.8 million people signed the pay as you drive tax petition and all that happened was 1.8 million emails were returned saying 'tuff we'll do what we want'
 

pinkhelmets

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2001
Messages
5,187
Likes
89
#5
.....I'm puzzled by your view that Freeview is a waste of bandwidth.....
Ok i agree maybe that wasn't said in the right way that i meant it. I think its a waste of time (and money) trying to extend something that will always have limits. Coverage is just one limit, but whatever the allocated bandwidth will be it is a very small range that we are talking about. I.e. freeview has 30 or so channels whereas satelllite in europe has 7000+ and still easily expandable. Understandably at the moment freeview is a decent cheap base solution for most of the uk but my view is why extend it when its always going to have bandwidth limits? Its time to move on with broadcasting, look forward and invest in better solutions. Maybe tv-over-electricity cables, or any other upcoming new developments, basically Tv solutions are already better solved than terrestrial broadcasting they just need more investment.
Yes, make the most of the bandwidth that is available now, but in the end since it is limited it will create price wars for licensing, it can only ever offer a basic package so wont suit future demands, and it can never be received by a wider audience (ie europe), so oneday it just may become extinct. I think that extending the amount of channels, or producing channels with HD quality is something unsuited to a basic and outdated system. When channels are added then I'm sure most would choose to get movies and even some decent pay-tv choice rather than HD pictures; most want rid of the crappy shopping & gaming chans to, so it is kinda 'a waste' of the space.
My point really is, lets get some new services or high technelogy uses from the bandwidth that industry will bring. Videophone on watches, broadband wi-fi from your home that works the full length of the uk, full broadband via mobiles, and anything good people can invent.

Also, i realise amateur tv has no chance of getting the frequencies :) more of a dream & joke that bit lol. But ITV have plans to do much more localised broadcasting with terrestrial which involves some interesting ideas. So i'm not saying "shut freeview down asap", i just mean that i dont think its a great problem/loss if it doesnt have HD.

Finally, me & digidude probably have biased views because we are both in areas that will never get full freeview coverage and both know the government have no intentions of listening too lol.

Regards.
 

magistral

Inactive User
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
32
Likes
0
#6
I think that you are convincing me. Satellite broadcasting is the ultimate in distribution systems. Which is maybe why the BBC is asking the trust that guides it's future for permission to investigate a freesat service. Cable is good but won't ever reach many rural areas. TV broadcast over electricity distribution is an interesting one and I'm sure the power companies are already looking at it. I can forsee a lot of hurdles with it but they may be able to overcome them. That would be the ultimate cable system !

Mike
:FRIGHT:
 

pinkhelmets

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2001
Messages
5,187
Likes
89
#8
http://www.hdforall.org.uk/......It really should be for HDTV otherwise it'll just be for a miriad of poor channels for those not wanting or unable to pay for sky
Why?? Please explain?
If people DONT want to pay 150 for a freesat system, or zero if they choose Sky, then why should the whole country pay for them to receive HD pictures? If they can afford a HD tv set they can go pay £150 and save everyones licence fee costs!! Many people will need to pay over 150 to upgrade their aerial so it isnt about the poor, and I wholey disagree that there will just be a miriad of poor channels- 100% the oposite.
I'm all for the licence fee (which many are not) but a 'good range' is fair, not 'lets all chip in so that everyone has the unltimate' at our expence. What next, shall we all pay so that everyone in the country gets the full sky package too?