Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

admiraladz · Feb 19, 2005, 06:20 am

For those of you who don't know, the UK Government is in the process of winding down the analogue signal in the UK in preparation for a 'hard switch' to digital TV services. All this sounds fine and dandy and there's an article from the BBC here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4250243.stm

After all the talk of theoretical costs and benefits of the analogue switch off IMO some of the costs are unexpectedly large and the benefits are partly illusory. In fact there doesn't seem to be a very convincing argument for analogue switch off at all!

OK so the 6 million homes outside the current digital coverage area will be able to get the extra FREEVIEW channels for the first time. Also I admit that broadcasting in analogue is a very inefficient use of the spectrum, but the additional space for MORE channels ... I really don't think we need more diluted programming ... do we?

BUT the costs of switching over have been grossly underestimated. Aside from those mentioned in the article (such as new aerials and boxes - there's still no confirmation that portable TV aerials will EVER be able to receive the new digital signal), there is also the minor point that approx 1% of the population will lose its TV signal all together! Forget the poor and the old and all the warranted concerns they have!

These are the arguments as they have been for the past 12 months, but what I have discovered through research is by far IMO the most important reason why we should forget about this switch off altogether ....

TODAYS GENERATION OF DIGITAL TV ADAPTERS ARE GROSSLY ENERGY-INEFFICIENT

A reasonable estimate made in Broadcast Magazine (11 Feb) is that the move to digital will cost the country £400 million A YEAR in extra electricity. - On first hearing this I couldn't believe it. Do you realise that is about 6% of the TOTAL UK DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION!?!! - SO if the Government are serious about hitting the Kyoto targets we need to work out how we're going to cover the 4 million extra tonnes of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere every year - costs that have not been factored into any of the official calculations I have seen.

The reason for all this? The boxes were designed to be as CHEAP as possible so the Government could reduce the 'expected costs' of switch off. BUT these £35 boxes have no standby mode when not in use and continue humming even when the TV is off (incidentally if you are one of those people who leave your TV on standby instead of turning it off ? ... that's 10% of your TOTAL annual fuel bill .. think about it!). Reluctance to install better electronics in the boxes is compounded by viewer resistance to having to wait 10 seconds for the box to switch from 'standby' to 'on' mode!

SYNOPSIS:
Rollout of digital boxes (in the UK ONLY) will cost the planet another 4 million extra tonnes of carbon per year.

This could be avoided by using efficient boxes, but we can't be bothered to wait 10 seconds for our TV

The Government is forging ahead on another ill-conceived permanent change (like the all that insane privatisation of services that worked .. and now don't!)

A rational look at the balance of arguments should suggest that the MANDATORY switch off of analogue transmitters is bad public policy and should be abandoned.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 22, 2005, 01:57 pm

Digital media is by far easier to process and distribute. The savings are coming from the producers end, not the viewer. Indeed, it wouldn't suprise me at all that a digital set top box with built in digital processors is using more electricity than a simply analog tuner. But all the producers have lobbied the government into the change, so there is little that can be done to stop it.

Honestly, I think digital is worlds better as far as viewing quality. It also will allow for the integration of TV and computers into one main media device for each house. The simpler system usually is cheaper.

Feb 19, 2005, 06:20 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
admiraladz Down Boy! Posts: 71	Digital - do we actually need it? For those of you who don't know, the UK Government is in the process of winding down the analogue signal in the UK in preparation for a 'hard switch' to digital TV services. All this sounds fine and dandy and there's an article from the BBC here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4250243.stm After all the talk of theoretical costs and benefits of the analogue switch off IMO some of the costs are unexpectedly large and the benefits are partly illusory. In fact there doesn't seem to be a very convincing argument for analogue switch off at all! OK so the 6 million homes outside the current digital coverage area will be able to get the extra FREEVIEW channels for the first time. Also I admit that broadcasting in analogue is a very inefficient use of the spectrum, but the additional space for MORE channels ... I really don't think we need more diluted programming ... do we? BUT the costs of switching over have been grossly underestimated. Aside from those mentioned in the article (such as new aerials and boxes - there's still no confirmation that portable TV aerials will EVER be able to receive the new digital signal), there is also the minor point that approx 1% of the population will lose its TV signal all together! Forget the poor and the old and all the warranted concerns they have! These are the arguments as they have been for the past 12 months, but what I have discovered through research is by far IMO the most important reason why we should forget about this switch off altogether .... TODAYS GENERATION OF DIGITAL TV ADAPTERS ARE GROSSLY ENERGY-INEFFICIENT A reasonable estimate made in Broadcast Magazine (11 Feb) is that the move to digital will cost the country £400 million A YEAR in extra electricity. - On first hearing this I couldn't believe it. Do you realise that is about 6% of the TOTAL UK DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION!?!! - SO if the Government are serious about hitting the Kyoto targets we need to work out how we're going to cover the 4 million extra tonnes of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere every year - costs that have not been factored into any of the official calculations I have seen. The reason for all this? The boxes were designed to be as CHEAP as possible so the Government could reduce the 'expected costs' of switch off. BUT these £35 boxes have no standby mode when not in use and continue humming even when the TV is off (incidentally if you are one of those people who leave your TV on standby instead of turning it off ? ... that's 10% of your TOTAL annual fuel bill .. think about it!). Reluctance to install better electronics in the boxes is compounded by viewer resistance to having to wait 10 seconds for the box to switch from 'standby' to 'on' mode! SYNOPSIS: Rollout of digital boxes (in the UK ONLY) will cost the planet another 4 million extra tonnes of carbon per year. This could be avoided by using efficient boxes, but we can't be bothered to wait 10 seconds for our TV The Government is forging ahead on another ill-conceived permanent change (like the all that insane privatisation of services that worked .. and now don't!) A rational look at the balance of arguments should suggest that the MANDATORY switch off of analogue transmitters is bad public policy and should be abandoned.

Feb 22, 2005, 01:57 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Digital media is by far easier to process and distribute. The savings are coming from the producers end, not the viewer. Indeed, it wouldn't suprise me at all that a digital set top box with built in digital processors is using more electricity than a simply analog tuner. But all the producers have lobbied the government into the change, so there is little that can be done to stop it. Honestly, I think digital is worlds better as far as viewing quality. It also will allow for the integration of TV and computers into one main media device for each house. The simpler system usually is cheaper.