"martin" wrote
snip
OT, I know. I've pondered this long and carefully for years and
years. It does seem an absurd method, and in very rare cases an
unjust one, but nobody's ever suggested a better way of funding two
TV channels, four or even five world-class radio networks, the best
website in the world, countless local radio stations, several major
orchestras, a "big band", a major choir or more, huge quantitiies of
material for schools and universities, and commissioning new writing
and music like nobody else on the planet.

From the national budget like the Dutch do.
Martin

Yeah,, but Dutch TV is crap. I watch the BBC :~)
Jenny

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 00:28:24 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

OT, I know. I've pondered this long and carefully for years and
years. It does seem an absurd method, and in very rare cases an
unjust one, but nobody's ever suggested a better way of funding two
TV channels, four or even five world-class radio networks, the best
website in the world, countless local radio stations, several major
orchestras, a "big band", a major choir or more, huge quantitiies of
material for schools and universities, and commissioning new writing
and music like nobody else on the planet.

From the national budget like the Dutch do.

Surely that just means the entire Dutch nation pays for TV
broadcasting, whether or not they have a TV ?
Janet

Indeed, but how many people do not have at least one TV nowadays?
Jenny

martin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:51:14 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
[...]
I take the point about not having to pay for separate collecting
staff; but I think that would be nearly balanced by having to
retain
staff to process and police the exemptions for people who claim
not
to have TV -- that's computerised already, but it still needs real
people on the ground*. Unless, of course, we were simply to force
everybody to contribute regardless; and I don't really like that.

There are no exemptions. Pacifists don't get exemptions.

I sympathise. Certainly not allowing exemptions would make it easier
and cheaper. I don't know how much cheaper, but perhaps so much so
that it wouldn't be significantly unfair to non-partakers. But I'd
still object on the other grounds: there is no tradition of
hypothecated general taxation in this country.

--
Mike.

The message
from martin contains these words:

All UK analogue TV transmission will be phased out between 2007 and
2012, enabling transmitter power to be increased, which should produce
better/stronger digital signal. You may get it then.

It's not so simple. Digital TV needs line of site for good reception.

Line of what?

Whether a signal requires a clear line of sight between antennae depends
on frequency, not mode of transmission.

TV signals will bounce from solid objects at their frequency, whereas at
higher frequencies they tend to be absorbed. Certainly at frequencies
approaching a gigahertz even a tree in leaf will block a signal, but at
TV frequencies, they won't.

If a even weak analogue signal can be received, a digital one of the
same strength is likely to be processed much better.

However, that's not to say it will be ideal.

--
Rusty
horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

the beebs worth the licence fee purely for its news having no commercial pressures on it. As Mike said just look at itv or for an even worse examples the major broadcasters in the US, fox especially. ok, you can raise the gilligan story over iraq and the way the govt got the beeb to backtrack, but with their fee up for renewal by this govt they had no real option. anyways this post is too political for a gardening forum so i'm off for the mo

The message
from "JennyC" contains these words:

Indeed, but how many people do not have at least one TV nowadays?

Here's one.

--
Rusty
horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
The message
from martin contains these words:

All UK analogue TV transmission will be phased out between 2007 and
2012, enabling transmitter power to be increased, which should produce
better/stronger digital signal. You may get it then.

It's not so simple. Digital TV needs line of site for good reception.

Line of what?

Line of site. If you don't line up your aerial correctly with the site
of the transmitter, you will not get good reception. Really!

Whether a signal requires a clear line of sight between antennae depends
on frequency, not mode of transmission.

TV signals will bounce from solid objects at their frequency, whereas at
higher frequencies they tend to be absorbed. Certainly at frequencies
approaching a gigahertz even a tree in leaf will block a signal, but at
TV frequencies, they won't.

And, at MUCH higher frequencies, even houses become transparent :-)

Well, ignoring that lunacy, it is too much of a simplification to
say that signals bounce of solid objects. The wavelengths are such
that there is considerable interference, which produces weird effects.

If a even weak analogue signal can be received, a digital one of the
same strength is likely to be processed much better.

Er, no. If the digital signal isn't good enough for its error
correction to work, you will get effectively nothing. You will
continue to see and hear SOMETHING for even lower quality analogue
signals, though few people will want to.

I haven't looked into the digital signal technology in detail, but
it is very similar to tape recording technology as far as encoding
goes. And digital recording needs EITHER a significantly higher
bandwidth OR a significantly better signal to deliver the same
quality of analogue signal back.

This is because you are starting and ending with analogue; when you
are starting and ending with digital (as in computer data), then
transmitting in digital is better. You can only lose information
by converting between the two, not gain it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , Jaques
d'Alltrades writes
The message
from "JennyC" contains these words:

Indeed, but how many people do not have at least one TV nowadays?

Here's one.

And Jenny - you know another urgler who doesn't.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"JennyC" wrote in message
...

"martin" wrote
snip
OT, I know. I've pondered this long and carefully for years and
years. It does seem an absurd method, and in very rare cases an
unjust one, but nobody's ever suggested a better way of funding two
TV channels, four or even five world-class radio networks, the best
website in the world, countless local radio stations, several major
orchestras, a "big band", a major choir or more, huge quantitiies of
material for schools and universities, and commissioning new writing
and music like nobody else on the planet.

From the national budget like the Dutch do.
Martin

Yeah,, but Dutch TV is crap.

I agree. I saw it once, I couldn't understand a word of it.

Steve

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
The message
from martin contains these words:

All UK analogue TV transmission will be phased out between 2007 and
2012, enabling transmitter power to be increased, which should produce
better/stronger digital signal. You may get it then.

It's not so simple. Digital TV needs line of site for good reception.

Line of what?

Line of site. If you don't line up your aerial correctly with the site
of the transmitter, you will not get good reception. Really!

It's line of *SIGHT* - nothing to do with the 'site' of the transmitter.
One aerial should be visible from the other. (FSVO visible)

Whether a signal requires a clear line of sight between antennae depends
on frequency, not mode of transmission.

TV signals will bounce from solid objects at their frequency, whereas at
higher frequencies they tend to be absorbed. Certainly at frequencies
approaching a gigahertz even a tree in leaf will block a signal, but at
TV frequencies, they won't.

And, at MUCH higher frequencies, even houses become transparent :-)

Well, ignoring that lunacy, it is too much of a simplification to
say that signals bounce of solid objects. The wavelengths are such
that there is considerable interference, which produces weird effects.

Even with sound. That's why it's sometimes better to point your antenna
in another direction and receive a weaker but more uncluttered signal.

If a even weak analogue signal can be received, a digital one of the
same strength is likely to be processed much better.

Er, no. If the digital signal isn't good enough for its error
correction to work, you will get effectively nothing. You will
continue to see and hear SOMETHING for even lower quality analogue
signals, though few people will want to.

Not IME, and I've been dabbling in radio from around 1955 and (slow
scan) TV from the 'eighties, and paid a little attention to talks on
digital stuff at the Amateur Radio Club meetings.

Where you get problems is when the signal is either intermittant or
fluctuating in amplitude. While the second shouldn't affect the output,
it does. A weak digital signal can be amplified and cleaned through
filters.

I haven't looked into the digital signal technology in detail, but
it is very similar to tape recording technology as far as encoding
goes. And digital recording needs EITHER a significantly higher
bandwidth OR a significantly better signal to deliver the same
quality of analogue signal back.

The whole idea of digital is that it operates on a precise frequency -
as far as the generating and transmitting equipment will permit. It's
all about money - you can cram many more channels into the same area of
the radio spectrum. Being a series of pulses, as long as you can
separate them from background 'hash' a ver weak signal will suffice.

This is because you are starting and ending with analogue; when you
are starting and ending with digital (as in computer data), then
transmitting in digital is better. You can only lose information
by converting between the two, not gain it.

That's the same with anything - take a photograph of a photograph of a
photograph and the result isn't to bad, but take a photocopy of a
photocopy of a photocopy and the results can be quite poor.

However, with modern equipment the actual losses in conversion of audio
from analogue to digital and vice-versa are miniscule. The limiting
factors are the clipping and compression used in the digital conversion,
and the retranslation of the received data.

Ask any TV cameraman which is better, a digital one or a three-chip
analogue, after he's spat, he'll say 'analogue'. If they just converted
to the best digital signal they could, the quality would be fine for
domestic use - it's the 'dumbing-down' of the data they transmit which
is the problem.

Don't get me going about digital radio either...

--
Rusty
horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

It's not so simple. Digital TV needs line of site for good reception.

Line of what?

Line of site. If you don't line up your aerial correctly with the site
of the transmitter, you will not get good reception. Really!

It's line of *SIGHT* - nothing to do with the 'site' of the transmitter.
One aerial should be visible from the other. (FSVO visible)

Sorry. I should have said "THIS IS A JOKE".

Er, no. If the digital signal isn't good enough for its error
correction to work, you will get effectively nothing. You will
continue to see and hear SOMETHING for even lower quality analogue
signals, though few people will want to.

Not IME, and I've been dabbling in radio from around 1955 and (slow
scan) TV from the 'eighties, and paid a little attention to talks on
digital stuff at the Amateur Radio Club meetings.

Where you get problems is when the signal is either intermittant or
fluctuating in amplitude. While the second shouldn't affect the output,
it does. A weak digital signal can be amplified and cleaned through
filters.

So can analogue, actually. The fact that most receivers are crap
doesn't mean they have to be.

A weak signal can be cleaned up, yes, but you get problems when you
lose enough of the bits to go over the capacity of the error correction.
ECCs that degrade gracefully are rare, and there are theoretical
reasons to doubt that good ones exist.

I haven't looked into the digital signal technology in detail, but
it is very similar to tape recording technology as far as encoding
goes. And digital recording needs EITHER a significantly higher
bandwidth OR a significantly better signal to deliver the same
quality of analogue signal back.

The whole idea of digital is that it operates on a precise frequency -
as far as the generating and transmitting equipment will permit. It's
all about money - you can cram many more channels into the same area of
the radio spectrum. Being a series of pulses, as long as you can
separate them from background 'hash' a ver weak signal will suffice.

Grrk. You can transmit only a constant signal (i.e. containing no
information) on a precise frequency. Digital transmission actually
uses a MUCH wider frequency range than analogue! Seriously.

HOWEVER, your other point is correct. You can separate transmissions
on different frequencies rather better and, provided that you can
recognise enough bits, strength is irrelevant. But that isn't quite
the same thing as we were talking about ....

This is because you are starting and ending with analogue; when you
are starting and ending with digital (as in computer data), then
transmitting in digital is better. You can only lose information
by converting between the two, not gain it.

That's the same with anything - take a photograph of a photograph of a
photograph and the result isn't to bad, but take a photocopy of a
photocopy of a photocopy and the results can be quite poor.

Yes.

However, with modern equipment the actual losses in conversion of audio
from analogue to digital and vice-versa are miniscule. The limiting
factors are the clipping and compression used in the digital conversion,
and the retranslation of the received data.

No, that misses the point here. If you need to force the converted
signal through a narrow 'channel' (digital or analogue), you lose
information. Inevitably. You can do the conversion near-perfectly,
but a bounded analogue bandwidth needs an infinite digital one and
conversely. The conversion isn't the problem.

Don't get me going about digital radio either...

Don't get me going about analogue tape storage of computer data ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
/snip/
Line of site. If you don't line up your aerial correctly with the site
of the transmitter, you will not get good reception. Really!

It's line of *SIGHT* - nothing to do with the 'site' of the transmitter.
One aerial should be visible from the other. (FSVO visible)

Sorry. I should have said "THIS IS A JOKE".

Or not said "Really!"?

/snip/

I haven't looked into the digital signal technology in detail, but
it is very similar to tape recording technology as far as encoding
goes. And digital recording needs EITHER a significantly higher
bandwidth OR a significantly better signal to deliver the same
quality of analogue signal back.

The whole idea of digital is that it operates on a precise frequency -
as far as the generating and transmitting equipment will permit. It's
all about money - you can cram many more channels into the same area of
the radio spectrum. Being a series of pulses, as long as you can
separate them from background 'hash' a ver weak signal will suffice.

Grrk. You can transmit only a constant signal (i.e. containing no
information) on a precise frequency. Digital transmission actually
uses a MUCH wider frequency range than analogue! Seriously.

Digital is what it says, and encodes by strings of minute pulses, and
the bandwidth is very narrow. AM can also be transmitted on a very
precise wavelength. Only FM requires a lot of bandwith to wriggle about
in because it's the frequency changes which carry the information.

HOWEVER, your other point is correct. You can separate transmissions
on different frequencies rather better and, provided that you can
recognise enough bits, strength is irrelevant. But that isn't quite
the same thing as we were talking about ....

/snip/

However, with modern equipment the actual losses in conversion of audio
from analogue to digital and vice-versa are miniscule. The limiting
factors are the clipping and compression used in the digital conversion,
and the retranslation of the received data.

No, that misses the point here. If you need to force the converted
signal through a narrow 'channel' (digital or analogue), you lose
information. Inevitably. You can do the conversion near-perfectly,
but a bounded analogue bandwidth needs an infinite digital one and
conversely. The conversion isn't the problem.

The problem is what is done to save money, not what it is possible to do
to retain quality.

Don't get me going about digital radio either...

Don't get me going about analogue tape storage of computer data ....

And don't get me going about CDs...

--
Rusty
horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
/snip/
Line of site. If you don't line up your aerial correctly with the site
of the transmitter, you will not get good reception. Really!

It's line of *SIGHT* - nothing to do with the 'site' of the transmitter.
One aerial should be visible from the other. (FSVO visible)

Sorry. I should have said "THIS IS A JOKE".

Or not said "Really!"?

That WAS the joke :-)

Grrk. You can transmit only a constant signal (i.e. containing no
information) on a precise frequency. Digital transmission actually
uses a MUCH wider frequency range than analogue! Seriously.

Digital is what it says, and encodes by strings of minute pulses, and
the bandwidth is very narrow. AM can also be transmitted on a very
precise wavelength. Only FM requires a lot of bandwith to wriggle about
in because it's the frequency changes which carry the information.

Er, no. That is the "O-level" explanation. The "A-level" one points
out that any variation in the amplitude of the signal will cause AND
NEED a variation in bandwidth. And the degree-level one introduces
Fourier theory. I was never an expert, but the executive summary is
that, to transmit information at N bits/sec, you need quite a lot
more than N cycles/sec of bandwidth.

You absolutely CAN'T transmit N bits/sec of independent information
on frequencies less than N cycles/sec apart, HOWEVER you do it, because
they will interfere with one another.

The problem is what is done to save money, not what it is possible to do
to retain quality.

Yes. And to line the pockets of "worthy people", like Rupert Murdoch.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Nick Maclaren wrote:

You absolutely CAN'T transmit N bits/sec of independent information
on frequencies less than N cycles/sec apart, HOWEVER you do it, because
they will interfere with one another.

Sorry, just in case we have a REAL mathematical pedant following this
thread, I should have said:

You absolutely CAN'T transmit N bits/sec of independent information
on a large number of frequencies, with the separation of each from
its neighbours in frequency less than N cycles/sec apart, HOWEVER
you do it, because they will interfere with one another.

You can do it for two close frequencies, with great difficulty.

This has now diverged so far from gardening that even I shall call
a halt :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from martin contains these words:

Odd that the guy who posts in shed speak was so eager to correct an
attack of spelling checker.

Sore thumb syndrome...

--
Rusty
horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/