DAB

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:41:18PM +0000, Peter Corlett
wrote:

> The BBC's Real streams are poor quality, and
incomplete. DAB isn't much
> better. I'm specifically interested in the DVB-T
stream, which is most

I fail to understand why they're expecting us to shift
either from FM to DAB,
or analogue to digital TV, given that the quality on the
digital is soooo
much worse. (use more 'bandwidth', auntie. And why does it
pixelate so badly
on a cross fade?)

Or is it something to do with "worse is better"
as someone has already
commented on w.r.t. mp3s taking over from CDs, as most
people don't seem to
care about the quality.

Nicholas Clark

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:49:55PM +0000, Nicholas Clark
wrote:

>I fail to understand why they're expecting us to shift
either from FM to DAB,
>or analogue to digital TV, given that the quality on the
digital is soooo
>much worse.

Because the government wants to sell off the analogue
frequencies for
lots of money (and presumably the usual "special
considerations").

R

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 02:03:01PM +0000, Roger Burton West
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:49:55PM +0000, Nicholas
Clark wrote:
> 
> >I fail to understand why they're expecting us to
shift either from FM to DAB,
> >or analogue to digital TV, given that the quality
on the digital is soooo
> >much worse.
> 
> Because the government wants to sell off the analogue
frequencies for
> lots of money (and presumably the usual "special
considerations").

And for even more fun expects us to pay for the sell off (by
having the BBC
lead the transition, and allowing it to raise the licence
fee to pay for
this) and yet will then trouser the cash from the sell off.

Yes, I know that the taxpayer has to pay for arranging the
sell off somehow.
It just doesn't seem very financially transparent to
divorce the cost of
making the asset saleable (ie the cost of freeing up the
spectrum) from the
income gained from selling the asset.

I suspect that the only people really happy with all this
are the BBC, as I
can't forsee the licence fee ever going down after the
transition, even 
though they no-longer need to spend money on it.

No, I'm not trying to bash the BBC here. I rather like the
BBC's content that
I read/listen to. It's just that the whole thing smells
less than transparent.
And we're likely to get lower (physical) quality at the end
of it, due to the
desire to spread the same content, resources and talent
across ever increasing
numbers of channels.

It's about as sweet and innocent as Sky and the BBC teaming
up to create
freeview. Mmm, why did two mortal enemies find common cause?
For the public
good?

Nicholas Clark

On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 13:49 +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:41:18PM +0000, Peter Corlett
wrote:
> 
> > The BBC's Real streams are poor quality, and
incomplete. DAB isn't much
> > better. I'm specifically interested in the DVB-T
stream, which is most
> 
> I fail to understand why they're expecting us to shift
either from FM to DAB,
> or analogue to digital TV, given that the quality on
the digital is soooo
> much worse. (use more 'bandwidth', auntie. And why
does it pixelate so badly
> on a cross fade?)
The quality for me on digital TV is /much/ better then
analog.  This is
probably because I don't live within the M25.  Really,
there is more to
the UK then just bond.  Yes, you sometimes see pixelization
during
fades.  This is far better then seeing static the entire
time.  

It does annoy me greatly that I see pixelization in my DVDs,
though,
along with "throb".  Please, can't someone
think of the viewers, and fix
the damn encoders?  DVDs aren't a broadcast medium, you can
just spend
more bandwidth on the problem.

And yes, I also think the freed bandwidth will be used for
nothing I'll
see much benifit from, and the money won't lower my taxes
(including
license fee), or improve services.  That's what government
always does,
no matter what the government.

(Also, I wonder when the hell people who aren't on crystal
palace will
start seeing full EPG data.  How hard is it to do on all the
xmitters
what you've been doing for months in bond?)

	-=- James Mastros

On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 13:49 +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:41:18PM +0000, Peter Corlett
wrote:
> 
> > The BBC's Real streams are poor quality, and
incomplete. DAB isn't much
> > better. I'm specifically interested in the DVB-T
stream, which is most
> 
> I fail to understand why they're expecting us to shift
either from FM to DAB,
> or analogue to digital TV, given that the quality on
the digital is soooo
> much worse. (use more 'bandwidth', auntie. And why
does it pixelate so badly
> on a cross fade?)
> 
> Or is it something to do with "worse is
better" as someone has already
> commented on w.r.t. mp3s taking over from CDs, as most
people don't seem to
> care about the quality.

IPods. 128Mb.
-- 
Dirk Koopman <djktobit.co.uk>

On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 16:04 +0000, Dirk Koopman wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 13:49 +0000, Nicholas Clark
wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:41:18PM +0000, Peter
Corlett wrote:
> > 
> > > The BBC's Real streams are poor quality, and
incomplete. DAB isn't much
> > > better. I'm specifically interested in the
DVB-T stream, which is most
> > 
> > I fail to understand why they're expecting us to
shift either from FM to DAB,
> > or analogue to digital TV, given that the quality
on the digital is soooo
> > much worse. (use more 'bandwidth', auntie. And
why does it pixelate so badly
> > on a cross fade?)
> > 
> > Or is it something to do with "worse is
better" as someone has already
> > commented on w.r.t. mp3s taking over from CDs, as
most people don't seem to
> > care about the quality.
> 
> IPods. 128Mb.

That should read:

IPods. 128Kbps.
-- 
Dirk Koopman <djktobit.co.uk>

On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Dirk Koopman wrote:
>
>> IPods. 128Mb.
>
> That should read:
>
> IPods. 128Kbps.

It's hard to tell, sometimes.  The lady from the cable
company asked  
me yesterday, while i was setting up cable broadband access,
if i  
could verify that my "computer's processor has at
least three  
gigabytes."

First: gigabytes in a processor?

Second: wtf is wrong with their setup that requires a 3GHz
processor  
to run a freaking TCP/IP connection?

Third: does the Macintosh and the whole megahertz
mythbusting really  
have so little mindshare that people at an ISP have never
heard of  
non-Windows computers?

--
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never  
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our
people, and  
neither do we.
   -- President George W. Bush

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 09:27:34PM -0500, muppet wrote:

>Second: wtf is wrong with their setup that requires a
3GHz processor to run a 
>freaking TCP/IP connection?

Cheap cable/ADSL cards are the new winmodems. You need about
2GHz to run
Windows these days[0], and since the card offloads most of
its
processing onto the CPU (including bouncing the several
viruses per
second that are standard with an unfiltered connection)
you'll need a
load more to be able to play the games that everyone knows
are the only
reason anyone ever gets a high-speed connection at home.

>Third: does the Macintosh and the whole megahertz
mythbusting really have so 
>little mindshare that people at an ISP have never heard
of non-Windows 
>computers?

Yes.

Roger

[0] I don't want to hear your counterexamples. That's what
many people
seem to believe.

Roger Burton West wrote:
> play the games that everyone knows are the only
> reason anyone ever gets a high-speed connection at
home.

I thought torrents and downloading iso's[0] were the only
reason people
wanted fast DSL?

[rant alert!]

Also - why would ANYONE want to put a windog box directly
onto the
net? Perhaps they should stick suicide pills in the card
packaging
- IMHO using the card amounts to machine suicide.

Having suffered a lightning strike (well the side effects) I
have seen
a BT USB DSL doofus fry (complete with smoke) and the USB
and NIC cards
go "pop". The machine is still working (just),
but an internal card
would have meant a fried mbrd - expensive!

Given that a standalone, firewalled NAT'd DSL/wired/less
box only costs
~50UKP or so why would anyone pay slightly less for a
"dumb" card
and take so many additional risks?

Mind you this is just as true for winmodems - and they are
JUST as 
dangerous. I have had to explain to family members why they
should NOT
connect up the 'phone' socket on thier computer to thier
phone line.
It seems that people feel that because the socket is there,
they should
stick something in it - IMHO a good reason to remove
winmodem cards from
most if not all machines.

Jacqui

[0] all they will admit to - dare I mention pron?

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:42:45AM +0000, Jacqui Caren
wrote:

>I thought torrents and downloading iso's[0] were the
only reason people
>wanted fast DSL?

Nah, that's the only reason those evil pirating SOBs want
_unmetered_
DSL. The gall of it, buying a 2 megabit connection and then
expecting to
be able to use it at 2 megabits! _Real_ customers don't
want that.

See
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/new
s/viewnews.cgi?id=EEupyAZEFlqGoPbIXN
.

>Mind you this is just as true for winmodems - and they
are JUST as dangerous. I 
>have had to explain to family members why they should
NOT
>connect up the 'phone' socket on thier computer to
thier phone line.
>It seems that people feel that because the socket is
there, they should
>stick something in it - IMHO a good reason to remove
winmodem cards from
>most if not all machines.

They do seem to be about the only piece of kit that has
stayed on cards
rather than migrating to the mainboard. I liked cards. You
could buy the
kit you wanted for a particular job, and not end up with a
bunch of
extra features you weren't going to use.

R