So the benefits of the digital switchover are what exactly?

[gaelicsheep]

We have Freesat from Sky already as we've no TV aerial here and inherited a Sky box, but I've been looking into all the alternatives that might be opened up to us when the magic switchover happens here in October.

And I've concluded that universal digital TV is a huge backward step from analogue for the following reasons:

1. You cannot watch something and record something else without buying expensive new equipment
2. If the signal loses strength it becomes not slightly fuzzy but actually unwatchable

The switchover is a huge waste of time and money because:

1. The vast majority of the extra "free" channels are full of crap and/or repeats
2. The one useful thing that could have been done already - namely Plus 1 versions of BBC 1, 2 and ITV - hasn't been done, god only knows why
3. We may be able to get Freeview after the switchover, but as switching from Freesat would mean losing the interactive content of the red button there are no benefits to doing so
4. Yes we can get better radio reception through the Freesat, but who wants to watch radio through their TV?

The benefits of the switchover are:

1. We can buy a hugely expensive HD TV to watch the same programmes a little bit clearer. Wey heh!
2. Can't think of any more.

Can anyone enlighten this hardened luddite?

Cable? Up here? You're joking right?!

Moral - don't move to the middle of bloody nowhere (not that we are really).

Well, some people have three options to consider - Freeview, satellite, or cable.

Clearly under 75% of the UK have the option of using cable, but it is worth knowing that toccatanfudge has found it trouble-free.

Only real downside of cable is that there is a monthly fee (I assume, even for just the 'free' channels?) whereas Freeview and Freesat have no monthly fees.

Freesat from Sky is a bit different, because there may be fees if you want to get HD service (if you have a nice big HD TV).

well not totally trouble free - but in comparison to satelite 100x better.

For those who already use Sky, there will be no change (unless you decide that you want to cancel the Sky subscription and buy a FreeSat box, or FreeSat HD). Sky users could add second and further rooms without paying Sky for multi-room, if they are willing to have only their existing (eg living room) Sky programmes tied to one room, and add FreeSat to other rooms.

There have been changes to the satellite kit over the past 20 years, and the dishes have come down in size to a neater shape. At the end of the arm on the dish setup, there's a device called an LNB (low noise block converter) which modifies the signals from the satellite so they can easily be passed down cheaper cable, but also amplifies the signals that are received. The shape of the dish is to focus as much signal into the LNB as possible, because the signal is weak (and susceptible to being absorbed by raindrops).

For anyone planning to use either a unit that allows recording of one channel and viewing of another, or someone wanting to use satellite in several rooms, then LNBs can have 2, 4 or 8 outputs for cables. Where a recorder is in use, 2 cables are required (one to go to the tuner for recording, the other to the tuner for playing on TV). If using Sky, it would be a Sky+ or Sky+ HD box that needs 2 cables.

So a family wanting to add a receiver (but without the Sky channels) for a second room, it would probably make sense to get an 8 output LNB fitted. That would allow you to have a FreeSat box that can record, using 2 cables, and have 2 for the existing Sky or FreeSat box, and have spares for other rooms. Of course only a single cable is needed to feed a non-recording box, so you could feed 2x recorders and 4 other rooms from one dish.

A friend has a Humax box and can record two channels while watching something from the hard drive in the Humax, so they are pretty clever and the prices will come down as more areas are switched and demand goes up. A (non recorder) FreeSat box may cost from about 75 to 150 pounds (upper end for HD reception).

While it's true there may be some desire to have "+1" channels for the main terrestrial services, the main "selling point" of Freeview is that there is more choice and at low cost. The OP is in the relatively rare position of going direct to satellite for service, where many will have a terrestrial aerial.

One of the benefits will (in the long run) be a drop in power consumption (OK, we don't necessarily pick up the cost directly, but each major transmitter would be a significant drain on the National Grid) - the channels I could pick up (including a very grotty Five) from Winter Hill (near Manchester) were fine, but to get the signals (I am on the edge of 3 areas, Central, HTV and Granada, here in N Wales, south of Chester) the transmitters were each pumping out 500 KW. Before switchover for Granada, the digital channels were mostly using 10 KW and one was on only 5 KW - just 1% of the analogue output power.

I'm sure most readers are aware of there being different sets of channels for different regions, but something which might be causing the poor signals some posters have complained about is the way a Freeview box might scan for signals.

As I am in an area where three regions overlap (and there's also a small local transmitter, too) the Freeview box used to get weak signals from Central (on a set of low channel numbers) first, and then as the scan for signals carried on, it eventually found the signals from Winter Hill, in the upper 50s and the 60s.

The effect of this was that the strong, good signals from Winter Hill were saved but because the main channels were duplicated, the Winter Hill channels were stored starting at channel 800 (BBC1) and so on. It meant I had awful signals if I just went to channels 1,2,3 etc. I solved this by unplugging the aerial for about half of the scan (based on the progress bar displayed on my box).

A further complication is that as part of the work being done, the aerials on the main transmitters are in many cases being moved so some places getting poor signals now should see improvements in the long run. The Wrekin (Central TV area) has 3 changes in 2010, 3 in 2011, 4 in 2012 and a further one in 2013, as shown on the web site www.digitaluk.co.uk (they have a postcode checker, but if you tick the box for 'trade' you get much more info, as they know aerial fitters will need to know what UHF channel numbers will be used on different dates).

The bulk of transmitters are now using 1/5th the power they had been beforehand, ie a drop in power use of 80%. www.ukfree.tv has power levels showing mostly 100,000 Watts but one of the lower power ones (with Film4, ITV4, 4Music, Viva, Yesterday, Dave ja vu and others, plus radio), is lower, at 12,500 Watts.

Although the power saving is less than when the output was for both analogue and digital, it will mean that fewer people will have poor signal strength and should be able to get the majority of channels (if some are missing right now). Using these lower power levels means that more signals can be transmitted as the previous problems of interference should not happen as often.

Finally (for tonight) I should mention that as far as listening to radio (or even TV) is concerned, then it is probably worth spending a bit more than 15 to 25 quid for a box in Asda or Tesco, and look for one with phono sockets on the back.

I have my sound going through a micro system (CD, FM, cassette) and it means that I can have an action film with good stereo sound from the main speakers, wide apart, or just have radio from the Freeview box and switch the TV off completely.

Most digital boxes should have audio outputs and again this will cut your home power consumption (10-15 watts for the Freeview box, maybe 30 to 50 for a stereo, but no 200 to 500 W for a TV to be on, if you just want to listen to radio.

gaelicsheep - re "plus 1" - probably they wanted to use the available signals to carry new channels (E4, more4, ITV2,3,4, FiveUSA, etc) before considering "+1" for BBC1,2 etc

Also, consider that www.SeeSaw.co.uk plus iPlayer plus 4oD (on demand) plus 'Demand 5' mean many TV shows can already be viewed hours/days after broadcast.

Wow, tons of information there NetworkGuy - thanks. I just wish that when decisions are being made they would consider the parts of the country that are being completely left behind by the market. Iplayer and the like are a distant and unaffordable dream for us. It makes me smart when I see people getting up to 8MB broadband for less than a tenner a month, when we're paying £25 a month for a crappy 0.5MB!

Plus, I believe that we would currently get an analogue signal if the communal aerial had been maintained. To go through this whole digital switchover and be perfectly happy to leave some households without a signal at all is just not acceptable IMO. We are within half an hour of a city - we're not on a remote island!

Without being too specific, which city, so at least some idea can be had of the problems...

Which ISP is charging 25 pounds ?

I know some people get much better deals than others - I am about 10 miles south of Chester and while the people in the centre of town might be able to get up to 20 Mbps, I'm on a smaller exchange with a long cable run (6 km) and get variable speeds.

In the last 4 months, max speed has been around 1.75 Mbps, have had a few periods of up to 5 days with no dialtone or broadband (and callers get an engaged tone, not 'there is a fault') and data to me is being limited to about 250 kbps a lot of the time because my connection speed seems to vary from about 500 kbps down to 160 kbps (while upload speed is a consistent at 488 kbps, when the line is working... just that I don't want to offer an outgoing audio stream like a radio station, or some webcam feed... outbound is about double the inbound speed). I had been using Three before getting the landline with a 5 GB/month limit, but as it hit the 18 month end of contract, they were pushed to keep a customer so charge 7.50 for 15 GB a month (ideal when the landline is up the creek).

Anyway, a few miles north-west at Mold they can have up to 24 Mbps (and it's a town a third the size) because they have O2/Be There as a competitor to BT. Chester has TalkTalk and Sky and others.

Anyway, there may be options which offer the same speed and reasonable amounts of data but at lower cost. Depends what you need (how many at home sharing the line?)

If you use SamKnows.com to identify your exchange code (4 to 8 letters, all capitals, mine is WNWXN but the first two letters give the region, WN for Wales North I think), and (if you know it) how much traffic your connection is used for... then I may then be able to suggest a few alternative ISPs.

Are you in some long contract, or have you been with your ISP for more than 12 months (and do you pay BT for the line rental and calls) ?

Just don't want you to find you cannot switch company easily. Would hope to find something which saves you 5 to 10 pounds a month, at least!

sorry if this has been mentioned but we will be able to get digital with a digital indoor aerial soon? they don't work currently.

will read thread properly later as i find it interesting!

It might be 3 letters in remote places...

Anyway, trying to find better deals is something I've been doing for my clients for between 6 and 10 years. Saved one firm over a thousand pounds a year by a simple suggestion (and charged them a one off 20% fee which was a nice boost for me!)

Thanks ng. Inverness. We're unusual as have bb through Scottish Govt contract with Avanti, by satellite. That's by far the most affordable, ii not the only option where we live.

Another one with no cable tv here. We also need planning permission for a satellite dish and they usually get turned down unless you can hide it(none on the front or visable from the st). Loads had to move theirs a couple of years ago when the council got tight on them.

gaelicsheep - Ah, good old satellite.

Sorry, definitely no experience of that (though I did check up on it a while back, and I understood some alternative satellite service is due for launch (!) anytime now. Depends on your contract length and whether you can switch easily, but I would guess that if there was some equipment change you'd have to find 300-500 pounds, and if satellite was in another position in sky, a further 200 pounds, so no easy way to change.

Short of moving, I don't see any easy ways to save cash. Some satellite systems have used satellite for downloads and dial-up over phone line to do "uploads" (ie requests for web pages) but it needs special software (to allow for length of time between sending and receipt a few seconds later).

nymphadora - seems a bit too strict - how does the council justify this ? I guess they could demand it if lots of properties are listed, but do they ban TV aerials (which, let's face it, can be quite unsightly too) ?

Is your area due for digital switchover ? Just that they might have to adopt a more tolerant policy when it is.

As for cable, well, it must be anything up to 50% - think "anywhere not a city, or big town not within 30 miles of a city" - the country was auctioned off as franchise areas in the late 90s, and some firms won an area but installed nothing at all.

Other areas were bought up over time by Telewest and some othe rfirm and eventually pretty much everything became Virgin Media. I don't have figures to hand but there are really lots of areas where cable does not and will never exist.

Probably a lot more than 50% as ground area, because urban areas are easier to dig up and install kit, and those are (of course) the areas where there's most competition on ADSL and BT is most likely to fit fibre in the future.

Unfortunately, there are sometimes tensions between rural and urban dwellers with some urbanites saying "Serves you right for living in the country" when people outside the cities complain comment about lack of services, higher costs, lower speeds.

I suppose some rural dwellers would equally increase tension by taunting commenting on urban problems (crime, grime, costs) but there are no easy answers to getting better speeds at affordable prices for rural users, at least in the short term, I suspect.

Yes majority listed on my st and we are a conservation area. Most aerials are on the back anyway but they may have made people move them too.

We lost ours last year.
Used to have 2 tellies, one upstairs so we could watch different stuff at teh same time.
Alas, no more.
We have a freeview telly so when teh satellite goes we can still watch the freeview channels.
Oh, and the transmitter is still over there on the hill, which is fairly weird!

What's weird about there being a transmitter on the hill nearby ?

Initially the idea is to switch the 'main' station(s) to transmit the signals for Freeview, but it will take longer to make changes to some of the local relays - the task with the main stations is fairly large because the changes have to be done carefully to avoid co-channel interference.

Situation for most of the UK up to now has been that in any one area, there are 4 (analogue) signals on a set of channels (usually close together so one aerial type is used).

The analogue signals have been transmitted with very high power (500 KW per channel for Winter Hill near Manchester, for example) so the channel numbers are spread out to ensure any extra transmissions [unwanted output] from one channel isn't mixing with any other channels and making poor TV pictures (or sound). Let's take a real example...

Sandy Heath (serving Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and north Hertfordshire) has the following signals:

Analogue TV ... channels 21 to 39
Digital TV .... channels 40 to 67

After switchover

Digital TV .... channels 21 to 52

At present the signals are

21 474 MHz 1000 kW - Channel 4
24 498 MHz 1000 kW - ITV 1
27 522 MHz 1000 kW - BBC Two
31 554 MHz 1000 kW - BBC One
39 618 MHz * * 10 kW - Five

Digital
40, 42 (BBC), 43, 45 (ITV), 46, 67 (BBC)

After switchover

21, 24, 27 Public Service
48, 51, 52 Commercial

The frequency range is about as far as you can go at present (21 is lowest, 68 or 69 highest) and people will probably have needed to change their aerials to get the BBC signals on Freeview unless they live fairly close, because most aerials (and the TV relays to fill in any areas behind hills etc) will have been ideal for the lower set of frequencies (474 MHz to 618 MHz) and not the upper end.

Much more work will be needed to get any relays ready for the final set of frequencies, and of course there has been a lot of planning to ensure that when any region has a digital service in operation, it does not interfere with another service in another region.

QualityTime - www.digitaluk.co.uk should show quite a lot of detail for your postcode (esp if you tick the Trade box) and should show channel numbers for Freeview including the relay within sight of your home.

Puzzled about 'when the satellite goes' - unless you mean that weather sometimes makes your signal go.

I assume switchover has already taken place (so you are likely to be in Wales or Devon/ Cornwall) but would have hoped your TV viewing would not have been badly affected. Seems I may be wrong on that score.

Why did they start the switchover in the areas most likely to have dodgy signal?

I used to have Freesat (xh had had sky put in & I kept the stuff but didn't pay) and the signal regularly went due to dodgy weather but could revert to terrestrial which was ok ish.