keith-236134 08:27 04 May 2006

Just watched a bit on the BBC about the switch to digital, i dont think its fair. I live in Cornwall and there's places here where there's no digital signal and, again, what about the elderly?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 09:12 04 May 2006

The switchover is due in 6 years. There will be places at the moment where there is no digital signal as there is only patchy coverage but there will be more or less full coverage by 2012. So there is plenty of time to [plan and you assume that elderly people do not already have Sky and other cable/sat services. In any case those over 75 are being taken care of....'The support scheme will provide equipment to convert one TV set, and help with its installation and follow-up support, to people aged 75 years and over and people with significant disabilities – that is, receiving attendance allowance or disability living allowance'.

Personally I can't wait as analogue TV quality is totally naff and it's about time this country started embracing the year 2006 rather than harping on about the 'good ol'days'. click here and click here

If a tiny number of people cannot get the signal why should the vast majority be left in the dark ages. TV is a service not a necessity. Where i live I cannot get channel5 but I have had no side effects from this. If you do not want to change your TV you can buy a set-top box that will convert the signal.


  anskyber 09:39 04 May 2006

As a Cornish emigre I understand your dilemma, I do really. But GANDALF <|:-)>, true to his style, has put the matter into context. From my own experience many people will need a new wideband TV aeriel and unless you fit it yourself it will cost £80-£100 for a fitter to do it for you. Given that the Freesat service is £150 and will give excellent results in Cornwall there may be an inevitability about it.

  keith-236134 12:56 04 May 2006

"If a tiny number of people cannot get the signal why should the vast majority be left in the dark ages. TV is a service not a necessity."

You could say that about just everything. Gandalf was quite a friendly person in Lord Of The Rings, perhaps he's missing Frodo

  GANDALF <|:-)> 13:51 04 May 2006

You are completely missing the point. TV is a service it is not a god-given right, this is an obvious statement. If the issue was about hospital treatment I would support it is not. It is about a commercial service that exists too make a profit and if you cannot afford it tough. I can't afford 3 Lamborghini Diablos....tough If you cannot afford medical treatment that is an entirely different argument.

The vast majority of people cannot afford 3 weeks at a 5 star hotel in the your logic the price should therefore be reduced to £15 and 6 tokens from the Sun. Being practical, looking at things logically, having people assume that you possess the same traits as a forum name that was picked out of a hat and missing Frodo are 4 different things. At least one of those four shows an absence of being firmly grounded in the real world ;-)


  wee eddie 16:51 04 May 2006

Don't let me down.

I've always thought of you as a wise "old" man!

  anchor 16:53 04 May 2006

Whilst accepting that the ITV are in business to make a profit, this does not apply to the BBC.

For the privilege of receiving any TV signal on our colour receivers we are charged £131.50 per year. (Less for a B/W one; but who has a B/W TV?). This is paid to the BBC to provide a service. This surely gives us the right to expect a service.

ps: I am fortunate to live in an area where the analogue signals are excellent, but I find the digital signals slightly inferior.

  ventanas 16:59 04 May 2006

Personally I think its taking far too long. The technology is there so why not use it. Where I live there is no Channel five, which is probably no big deal; no Freeview coverage, and I can't get Sky because we're surrounded by tall trees. So I'm stuck with just four channels, and watch very little.

I don't see why it can't be turned on much sooner than 2012, which is when our region is expected to change.

  pj123 17:34 04 May 2006

anchor, "Whilst accepting that the ITV are in business to make a profit, this does not apply to the BBC."

Not strictly true. The BBC sell programmes around the world for a profit. Supposedly, to keep our licence fee down.

I have a multi satellite "free to air" system and I can receive 100s of foreign stations without having to pay any more than my standard licence fee. I assume that others in, say, France, Germany, Italy etc who also have a free to air system can view all our UK channels. As far as I know all the BBC channels are free to air on Astra 2 so I would assume that anybody who is within the footprint of the Astra 2 satellite can get them. So someone in Germany, France, Spain etc isn't paying the UK licence fee.

Unless, of course, some of you Forum members who live in those countries know different.

  anskyber 17:43 04 May 2006

Well I'm in the vanguard of 2008 so I am sure there will be a lot to learn from this first phase. In line with the majority Ive got digital already and it is clearly superior to the analogue signals around here. To be honest we had the same concerns when we all migrated to 625 lines from 405 and no doubt there will be some glitches here: but who is worried now.

I take anchors point about the licence but no one is making anyone have a licence and no one is forced to have a television. The key will be how the disadvantaged are treated and if there is fair provision then roll it out I say. It is the only potential route at the moment for terrestrial HDTV (setting aside cable) so we can but hope.

  Pidder 18:35 04 May 2006

Only aspect which concerns me a bit is the vision of the impending mountains of obsolete analogue receivers, especially the smaller "portable" ones. What is to become of these?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5T review: Hands-on

Illustrator Andrés Lozano on his improv line work, brazen use of colours & hand sketching

iPhone X review

Comment envoyer gratuitement des gros fichiers ?