Digital switch over

[Forumosaurus]

Once the switchover is completed the signal should be better.

 

Also the part of the spectrum used to broadcast analogue TV will be auctioned off to make way for the next generation of mobile communications standards otherwise known as 4G.

 

4G shames some WiFi networks in terms of speed, so that's something all of us who aren't sticks in the mud can look forward to.

[esme]

Once the switchover is completed the signal should be better.

 

Also the part of the spectrum used to broadcast analogue TV will be auctioned off to make way for the next generation of mobile communications standards otherwise known as 4G.

 

4G shames some WiFi networks in terms of speed, so that's something all of us who aren't sticks in the mud can look forward to.

 

Except that 4G transmissions may interfere with digital TV broadcasts and make the situation for viewers worse

Almost a million UK homes will need to have filters installed to prevent TV interference from 4G mobile signals - at a cost of £108m.

 

A smaller number of homes - about 10,000 - will need to switch to satellite or cable TV services in order to avoid degraded picture quality.

 

Homes that cannot receive these alternative platforms will receive up to £10,000 each to "find a solution".

 

Costs will be met by the winner of a spectrum auction later this year.

[Forumosaurus]

Except that 4G transmissions may interfere with digital TV broadcasts and make the situation for viewers worse

 

That may be so, but what it comes down to is this: Is it worth the UK being behind the times with what will be considered standard technology in a couple of years, simply because a very small number of people will have to get a filter which "can be fitted without the help of an engineer".

 

I mean, people were more than willing to buy analogue TV signal boosters to get a signal.

 

Let's just never, ever advance in technology ever again if it means we have to buy a filter.

 

"Do you wanna cure cancer?"

"Errrmm, do I have to buy a filter?"

"Um yeah, small filter you can fit it yourself no problem"

"Oooo, how much?"

"Few quid...probably a few quid, a fiver maybe?"

"....hmmmm, I think I'll leave it thanks, you know, a cure for cancer would be great but, why do we always have to mess with stuff? New technologies are a waste of time."

 

smh.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

But at least Digital TV does mean that everyone can pick-up the Digital-only radio stations too.

BBC Radio 6Music is excellent; and BBC Radio 4Extra is too.

[RyoHazuki]

How do we know whereabouts the "million homes affected" will be? I certainly hope I'm not, and I don't want to go back to cable any time soon. I don't mind having some sort of filter as long as it isn't big and intrusive, and actually does the job it's supposed to.

[dosxuk]

It's a shame that none of the to be sold off to the mobile phone companies highest bidder spectrum was ringfenced for additional HD Freeview services. As it stands, one more channel should be able to be launched, but that will be it. No Film4 HD, no Sky Sports HD or even QVC HD. And as Five have pulled out of the running for the next potential channel, no Five HD either.

 

It also means that after the Olympics, there will only be one interactive video stream on all platforms, so no watching your choice of tennis court at Wimbeldon, no choosing which table you want to watch on the snooker, and no opting to watch Final Score instead of Chelsea Flower show extra.

 

With regards to the interferance issues, the mobile phone companies could filter their masts rather than requiring millions of people to filter their TVs. However, since they don't mind if they cause a bit of interferance, and their filters will cost a lot more, they're refusing to do so. Unless OfCOM actually decide to do some regulating, it'll be the tax payer who picks up the bill (again).

[esme]

That may be so, but what it comes down to is this: Is it worth the UK being behind the times with what will be considered standard technology in a couple of years, simply because a very small number of people will have to get a filter which "can be fitted without the help of an engineer".

 

I mean, people were more than willing to buy analogue TV signal boosters to get a signal.

 

Let's just never, ever advance in technology ever again if it means we have to buy a filter.

 

"Do you wanna cure cancer?"

"Errrmm, do I have to buy a filter?"

"Um yeah, small filter you can fit it yourself no problem"

"Oooo, how much?"

"Few quid...probably a few quid, a fiver maybe?"

"....hmmmm, I think I'll leave it thanks, you know, a cure for cancer would be great but, why do we always have to mess with stuff? New technologies are a waste of time."

 

smh.

True but all they had to do was ensure the 4G standard didn't interfere with channels either side.

 

Basically they are saying the 4G bandwidth requirement is to high to fit the available slot but they are going to shoehorn it in anyway and then deal with the fallout caused by overlapping bands reserved for other things.

 

If 4G were overlapping military frequencies you can bet they would find a different solution.

 

Now I agree that 4G will be useful but I don't think up to a million is a small number, some sites are saying hundreds of thousands others are saying up to 2million, still not trivial numbers, but I guess we'll suck it and see.

 

I have no problem fitting a filter if one is necessary, I was merely pointing out that 4G may cause interference on a service that some people already have a problem receiving.

 

... And seriously, you are comparing 4G with a cure for cancer ?