End of analog TV

[Jeff Layman]

Arfa Daily wrote:
(snip)

Given the obvious advantages of the satellite service over the
corresponding terrestrial one, and the similar hardware and
installation costs (ref the sub-fifty quid ready-to-roll FreeSat
system that Screwfix are offering), I really can't see why anyone
upgrading from analogue to digital, would want to go down the
terrestrial route ...
Arfa

No line-of-sight to satellite?

--
Jeff

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Jeff Layman" <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gghc2h$o4b$1@news.albasani.net...

Arfa Daily wrote:
(snip)
Given the obvious advantages of the satellite service over the
corresponding terrestrial one, and the similar hardware and
installation costs (ref the sub-fifty quid ready-to-roll FreeSat
system that Screwfix are offering), I really can't see why anyone
upgrading from analogue to digital, would want to go down the
terrestrial route ...
Arfa

No line-of-sight to satellite?

--
Jeff

That would be a reason indeed, but it's fairly rare, IME, that a dish can't
be sited somewhere - even at ground level - to get a view of the southern
sky. There are some obvious exceptions to that such as in blocks of flats
and so on, but these are usually fitted with a communal distribution system
in the UK. There are also some areas where dishes on the building are banned
for National Trust 'place of beauty' reasons or whatever, but if that is the
case, it's likely that a bloody great piece of ironwork on the roof will be
frowned upon, as well. Even where dishes are banned from sight, I've seen
some good disguise jobs on the wall that have been painted, or dishes in the
garden on patio mounts. I wouldn't think on balance, that there are any more
'difficult' satellite reception cases, than there are terrestrial.

Arfa

 

I subscribe to DirecTV.I don't know what to expect.
cuhulin

 

[msg]

Arfa Daily wrote:

<snip>

In the UK, we have a 'television licence'.<snip

The licence has undergone a few quiet changes over the years. For instance,
it used to be issued to a household, and children who were away at
university, living in digs, still qualified as being part of the household,
as their primary domicile was still the family home, but that has now been
changed such that the licence is issued to an address, so students have to
have their own licence for their digs, or risk a Ł1000 fine, as the TV
advert gleefully informs us ...

To me, the right to receive signals over the public airways without government
intrusion, taxation or monitoring is sacrosanct and one of the most important
constituents of liberty and worthy of a robust defense. Has there never
been a movement in your country to abolish such a draconian provision of
governance?

So, even though the basic analogue service is fundamentally 'free', it is,
as you say, 'taxed' by way of a licence fee, set, administered and levied by
the government, and passed on to part-finance the BBC.

To finance the BBC, just levy a tax and make legislators accountable to the
populace, don't deprive people of what we take to be an inalienable right, the
right to information in the public space. Don't deprive the poor, aging, ill,
and disenfranchised of the ability to gather information, and be consoled in
their solitude, by discourse and entertainment over the public airwaves.

Michael

 

[Joerg]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

[...]

And BTW, in the U.S. they use a 60Hz signal with a different color
encoding scheme, and most TV's won't display the signal. Digital
encoding is similar, but US digital TV still ends up with 30 frames per
second (actually slightly less due to a rounding error), while the UK
uses 25.

That can be fixed. When I lived in Europe I had modified a 25fps TV set
there to be able to also display 30fps. Most sync separator chips are
"bilingual" so that was easy. A peek at the datasheet, done. Then I
mounted a switch and, voila, I had a dual standard TV. This allowed
watching video tapes bought at US National Parks etc. The VCR was
already multi-standard.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"msg" <msg@_cybertheque.org_> wrote in message
news:CbudnZLxj8MM_7HUnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@posted.cpinternet...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip
In the UK, we have a 'television licence'.<snip

The licence has undergone a few quiet changes over the years. For
instance, it used to be issued to a household, and children who were away
at university, living in digs, still qualified as being part of the
household, as their primary domicile was still the family home, but that
has now been changed such that the licence is issued to an address, so
students have to have their own licence for their digs, or risk a Ł1000
fine, as the TV advert gleefully informs us ...

To me, the right to receive signals over the public airways without
government
intrusion, taxation or monitoring is sacrosanct and one of the most
important
constituents of liberty and worthy of a robust defense. Has there never
been a movement in your country to abolish such a draconian provision of
governance?

So, even though the basic analogue service is fundamentally 'free', it
is, as you say, 'taxed' by way of a licence fee, set, administered and
levied by the government, and passed on to part-finance the BBC.

To finance the BBC, just levy a tax and make legislators accountable to
the
populace, don't deprive people of what we take to be an inalienable right,
the
right to information in the public space. Don't deprive the poor, aging,
ill,
and disenfranchised of the ability to gather information, and be consoled
in
their solitude, by discourse and entertainment over the public airwaves.

Michael

I don't know of any movement specifically of the purpose of removing the
licence. As far as I know, there has always been a requirement to hold one
type of licence or another, going right back to the inception of the BBC in
its wireless only days. Also, as far as I know, the purpose has always been
to finance at least in part, if not totally, the BBC.

What cracks me up, is that the BBC have, over the years, steadfastly refused
to accept advertising in any shape or form, to generate additional revenue.
However, they also have a huge fully commercial sales business in
'ancillaries' such as DVDs of their programming. This, they are very happy
to self-advertise in the breaks betwen programmes. In my view, given that
they won't accept external advertising, they should be made to pay to have
their own goods advertised on commercial television stations.

In theory, the BBC is apolitical, but it is in truth staffed and run by
government lackeys at the highest levels, which has a profound effect on the
governments ability to interfere in the way it is run. As it is in effect
the 'state' television service, with the best will in the world, there is no
way that it can be truly independant of politics, and as successive
governments swing left and right, we tend to see the good old Beeb doing the
same to stay in favour.

Arfa

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <AJ1Xk.1749$AS.1543@newsfe25.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

What cracks me up, is that the BBC have, over the years, steadfastly
refused to accept advertising in any shape or form, to generate
additional revenue.

And rightly so. There isn't enough advertising revenue to go round these
days - hence the ITV companies being in real trouble. If the BBC were
allowed to cream off some of this that would likely be the end of them.
And you'd end up with the nonsense of having to pay up front for a service
*and* have those annoying ad breaks.

Considering the number of hours of TV most watch the licence is good value.

To single out it as some form of human rights issue or whatever is
nonsense. Smokers have to pay tax on their cigarettes as do drinkers on
their alcohol. Motorists just to own a car they may use infrequently.

You can certainly argue how that money is spent, though. Personally I
think the BBC should stick with its core business.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5004379eecdave@davenoise.co.uk...

In article <AJ1Xk.1749$AS.1543@newsfe25.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
What cracks me up, is that the BBC have, over the years, steadfastly
refused to accept advertising in any shape or form, to generate
additional revenue.

And rightly so. There isn't enough advertising revenue to go round these
days - hence the ITV companies being in real trouble. If the BBC were
allowed to cream off some of this that would likely be the end of them.
And you'd end up with the nonsense of having to pay up front for a service
*and* have those annoying ad breaks.

You're missing the point I was making, though. I don't have a problem with
them refusing to accept advertising. I have no desire to see adverts for
cornflakes or whatever on the BBC. But by the same token, I don't really
want to see adverts for the collected DVD of Blakes Seven episodes 1 to
1000, either. I just think that it's a bit hypocritical of them to refuse
external advertising, but be quite happy to advertise their own products for
free.

Considering the number of hours of TV most watch the licence is good
value.

To single out it as some form of human rights issue or whatever is
nonsense. Smokers have to pay tax on their cigarettes as do drinkers on
their alcohol. Motorists just to own a car they may use infrequently.

Agreed on both points

You can certainly argue how that money is spent, though. Personally I
think the BBC should stick with its core business.

And fire Jonathan Ross once and for all ...

Arfa

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

You're missing the point I was making, though. I don't have a problem with
them refusing to accept advertising. I have no desire to see adverts for
cornflakes or whatever on the BBC.

It's not as big a problem as you would think. Here we have both
commerical stations and a tax supported one, besides many pay ones. They
show programs uninterrupted from start to finish, and the commerical
stations add commercials, while the pay and tax ones show program trailers
and so on.

BBC prime shows both trailers and shorts in the time.

The US practice of interrupting a program to show a commercial bothers me,
but I have not seen anything like it since I have been here.

But by the same token, I don't really
want to see adverts for the collected DVD of Blakes Seven episodes 1 to
1000, either. I just think that it's a bit hypocritical of them to refuse
external advertising, but be quite happy to advertise their own products for
free.

I don't know, I'd love to see all of the episodes of Blake's Seven, maybe
they can show them on BBC prime. Meanwhile I expect that the number one
seller these days is Doctor Who. I once had a video tape collection of
everything that had been shown on US television, but it was on Beta tapes.
Lacking a working playback device, I gave my broken recorded and the tapes
to someone who may actually use it, but since last we communicated, he had
not.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:52:41 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:05:06 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:46:50 -0000, (PeteCresswell) <x@y.invalid> wrote:

Per Peter Hucker:
To save $20+ per month.
They are the same price!!! (Free)
That one went right over my head.

How does one get TV via satellite for free in the USA?
Sorry, I was under the impression that if you could get it in rip off UK, you could get it anywhere.

If you subscribe to a satellite service, and don't pay up, do you not still get the free channels? If I stop paying my Sky Digital subscription, I still get the free channels through the dish (the ones I'd get through an aerial either on digital or analog).

Not in the US. If you don't pay sat or cable then your TV blitzes off
unless you have an aerial. There is no such thing like your Astra
satellites here.

I take it you can't get our satellites from that far away? Or anyone else's?


Yeah, some remote ones but you need big honking dishes.

But Americans like big, or is that only Texas?

Although, last time I was in Europe the programming on
there did not exactly impress me.

I was under the impression (only from word of mouth and what I've seen on American sitcoms/etc) that your TV was as full of junk as ours. You lot invented the term "channel flipping" didn't you?

I never watch sitcoms. The main issue I see is that programming guides
are wrong a lot. Announced movies are replaced by something else
willy-nilly style and even the "new and improved" DTV with its online
menues still shows the old movie while (!) the wrong one is playing.

That doesn't happen here. The TV guide may be out of date, as I get it weekly and things change (mainly due to bloody football which should be on it's own channel!!) But the digital TV menu is always correct (on Sky Digital). I pick what I want to record the night before, by which time any changes are on the menu so I can see what's really on.

Pathetic. However, nature channels, PBS and stuff are really great. Also
the evening news which in Germany were just a brief 15 minutes when I
lived there. Here it's 45-60 minutes (minus commercial time).

IMHO one has to avoid centering family life around the TV set. It's not
good to do that, never has been.

That's why I record everything. I watch things when I have the time, not when they're on. And I can skip adverts and pause.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

,
/ \
.' '.
/ \
/.-. .-.\
`/ '.' \`
.' '.
/.--. .--.\
`/ '. .' \`
.' ` '.
/.---. .----.\
`/ `. .' \`
.' `.' '.
/,----, ,----,\
`'-.__.;-,____,-;.__.-'
|||||
|||||
`"""`

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:19:01 -0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:

I take it you can't get our satellites from that far away? Or anyone
else's?

No, from the U.S. the UK satellites are below the eastern horizon. They
also use a "spot beam" and although I can "see" the satelites, there
is no signal here.

I once tried using a program which calculates the dish size you need
to receive a signal and found that even with a 9 meter dish, there was
not enough signal here. Not that I was going to install a 9 meter
dish, but it was worth the cost of putting a number into a
free program.

And BTW, in the U.S. they use a 60Hz signal with a different color
encoding scheme, and most TV's won't display the signal. Digital
encoding is similar, but US digital TV still ends up with 30 frames per
second (actually slightly less due to a rounding error), while the UK
uses 25.

I would have thought modern TVs would display either. Certianly projectors and video recorders accept both.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:45:31 -0000, (PeteCresswell) <x@y.invalid> wrote:

Per Peter Hucker:
I was under the impression (only from word of mouth and what I've seen on American sitcoms/etc) that your TV was as full of junk as ours. You lot invented the term "channel flipping" didn't you?

I guess it's a matter of individual preference, but I don't see
much that really grabs me.

Mainly I tape stuff: Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley on weeknites,
Nova whenever it happens, Bill Moyers' Journal, Now, and a few
others.

We flip between Charlie Gibbs and The News Hour during dinner.

When I go down to my daughter's place where they have cable or
when I'm taking care of the neighbor's cat where he has a dish,
sometimes I find interesting stuff - like Comedy Central or
CSPAN... but often it just takes that much more channel surfing
to find out there's nothing interesting on.

Which is why I scan through the TV guide before I go to bed and record eveything of interest that's on the folowing day.

If I end up recording something I later find sux, I can always skip it.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

To confirm the discontinuation of stopping the startup, click cancel.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:04:09 -0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:

I would have thought modern TVs would display either. Certianly
projectors and video recorders accept both.

Multisystem TV sets are hard to find. In the US, they are next to impossible.
Here in Israel they used to be quite common and people brought videos
from the US, while the over the air system is PAL. Now since DVD players
have an automatic up/down shift to 25 frame per second with PAL video
encoding option, no one bothers.

HDTV is only available over DBS, and there is no digital TV. If there
was it would be all 25 frames per second, although the video encoding
is YBCr, not PAL or NTSC.

Projectors generaly are multi frequency anyway because of the nature of
PC video, so to include 25 frames per second (50Hz) and 30 frames
per second (60Hz) sync is not much of a problem. The question is if
they accept composite/s video instead of RGB and if there is a decoder
for NTSC or PAL encoding.

Every one I've used (we have loads at work) has composite, RGB, and svideo inputs. They probably all take NTSC, they certainly specifically say "PAL" on the screen when they sync.

PAL encoding is fundimentaly the same as NTSC, except the color signal
is inverted every other line (hence the name phase alternate line).
The big difference is that the color signal was encoded on top of
the video over the air as a 4.43 mHz phase encoded (FM) signal, while
the NTSC was at 3.57 mHz.

This was more to do with the wider bandwidth a 50Hz signal requires
than anything else.

In order to save money multisystem players in the 1980's were set up
with NTSC 4.43 instead of NTSC 3.57. This is due to the fact that the
color signal itself is stripped off of the video on VHS and BETA tape
and was stuck back on at 3.57 mHz for NTSC and PAL. To save money, the
color encoding was all done at 4.43 mHz, so that only one set of modulators
was needed, one to add the color to the video and one to convert the
baseband composite video and audio to an RF (antenna) signal.

They were popular in countries that had no NTSC over the air signals.
In the 1980's I have VCR's and TV sets that would support both NTSC 3.57
and 4.43 and VCR's that supported NTSC (both), PAL and SECAM over
PAL RF encoding. I even at one time had a VCR that did French SECAM.

It's surprising anything works at all, so complicated!

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

If a cow laughs, does milk come out of its nose?

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Peter Hucker wrote:

I would have thought modern TVs would display either. Certianly
projectors and video recorders accept both.

Multisystem TV sets are hard to find. In the US, they are next to impossible.
Here in Israel they used to be quite common and people brought videos
from the US, while the over the air system is PAL. Now since DVD players
have an automatic up/down shift to 25 frame per second with PAL video
encoding option, no one bothers.

HDTV is only available over DBS, and there is no digital TV. If there
was it would be all 25 frames per second, although the video encoding
is YBCr, not PAL or NTSC.

Projectors generaly are multi frequency anyway because of the nature of
PC video, so to include 25 frames per second (50Hz) and 30 frames
per second (60Hz) sync is not much of a problem. The question is if
they accept composite/s video instead of RGB and if there is a decoder
for NTSC or PAL encoding.

PAL encoding is fundimentaly the same as NTSC, except the color signal
is inverted every other line (hence the name phase alternate line).
The big difference is that the color signal was encoded on top of
the video over the air as a 4.43 mHz phase encoded (FM) signal, while
the NTSC was at 3.57 mHz.

This was more to do with the wider bandwidth a 50Hz signal requires
than anything else.

In order to save money multisystem players in the 1980's were set up
with NTSC 4.43 instead of NTSC 3.57. This is due to the fact that the
color signal itself is stripped off of the video on VHS and BETA tape
and was stuck back on at 3.57 mHz for NTSC and PAL. To save money, the
color encoding was all done at 4.43 mHz, so that only one set of modulators
was needed, one to add the color to the video and one to convert the
baseband composite video and audio to an RF (antenna) signal.

They were popular in countries that had no NTSC over the air signals.
In the 1980's I have VCR's and TV sets that would support both NTSC 3.57
and 4.43 and VCR's that supported NTSC (both), PAL and SECAM over
PAL RF encoding. I even at one time had a VCR that did French SECAM.


Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Peter Hucker wrote:

It's surprising anything works at all, so complicated!

That was the whole idea. The US television standard was set in the 1940's.
It was a 525 line "frame" of video split between 2 "fields" 30 times
a second. Starting at the top middle of the screen, it would trace
down and right and then back again and down and right, so that the
entire screen was covered in 1/60th of a second.

Then it would repeat with the even numbered lines.

The idea was to syncronize it to the lights so there would not be
any noticable flicker. Video was single sideband reduced carrier, while
the audio was that "new fangled" FM.

There were several incompatible color systems, but the one picked by
the "National Television Standards Committe" was one that added color
information over a standard monochrome signal so that it was compatible
with black and white TV sets.

The BBC picked a similar system except running at 25 frames a second to
sync with 50Hz lights. The 20% slower frame rate allowed for 625 lines per
frame. This replaced the older 405 line system that was used before.
The BBC color system was based on the NTSC system, but in order to
compensate for the main flaw of it, the color signal was inverted in phase
every other line.

That's why NTSC TVs have brightness, contrast (from the black and white days),
color (chroma) and color level (saturation) controls while the PAL ones
are missing the color control, the PAL system makes them almost all the
the same, while NTSC ones need a phase adjstment to keep in sync.

Now here's were it gets complicated.

The French did not want their people to watch UK TV, so they used a different
transmission system. The monochome signal stayed the same, but the color
was encoded differently, the channels were spaced differently, and the audio
was AM instead of FM. So if you could receive a French broadcast in the
UK or vice versa, you would only get a black and white picture with no sound.

This eventually became a moot point as the UK switched to UHF only. The
signals no longer had the range to reach France or vice versa, and while
the French still had VHF broadcasts, the UK TV's no longer could tune them in.

Germany did not want their residents watching French TV and vice versa,
so they took a middle of the road path, they used PAL with a different
channel spacing and moved the sound carrier (still FM) within the smaller
channels.

The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries used SECAM encoding but the
same over the air system as Germany.

Japan and Korea used NTSC. China used Soviet SECAM. Israel used German PAL.
So did Jordan and Lebanon. Most of the other Arab countries used SECAM over
PAL over the air encoding. That's how it got the name MESECAM (Middle East
SECAM).

Most of the "Americas" used NTSC, except Brazil used a unique 30 frames
per second PAL.

Just in case you have not gotten completely lost yet, due to a rounding
error it was to 60Hz, or 30 frames per second, it's 30000/1001 or 29.97
frames per second. Does not sound like much, but it's 3 frames off every
100 seconds, or 3.6 seconds off per hour.

So now we come to the digital age, and to be blunt no one really cares.
MPEG encoding which was used by satellites and digital cable was component
video, so it really is not NTSC, PAL or SECAM, but the frame rates
still exist. DVD's use MPEG-2 encoding, which has better compression.
There are several competing similar standards called MPEG-4.

Digital TV sets just take the bit stream and play it directly, modern analog
TV's take the uncompressed component video and play it after digital
to analog conversion. Both automaticly adjust the frame rate.

The problem is what do you do with legacy TV's. In most cases set top
boxes convert it to one standard. DVD players allow for 3 frame rates
and convert as necessary.

DVD's can be had in NTSC (30000/1001 fps), NTSC file (24000/1001),
which are supposed to be 30 fps and 24 fps, and PAL 25 FPS. Films
shot at 24 fps, have been shown at 25 fps on PAL TV's since the 1960's,
maybe earlier.

As you can see, the big difference was that in the 1960's no one
wanted anyone else to watch their TV and vice versa. Now it's the
exact opposite.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <slrngiresf.irj.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:

DVD's can be had in NTSC (30000/1001 fps), NTSC file (24000/1001),
which are supposed to be 30 fps and 24 fps, and PAL 25 FPS. Films
shot at 24 fps, have been shown at 25 fps on PAL TV's since the 1960's,
maybe earlier.

Whilst this was true once, later telecine machines from sometime in the
'70s onwards with frame stores added a frame once a second to get back to
the correct speed.

That was when the UK companies did their own transfers from features to
tape.

--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Peter Hucker:

That's why I record everything. I watch things when I have the time, not when they're on. And I can skip adverts and pause.

MythTV?
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrngiqv7p.eh0.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:


You're missing the point I was making, though. I don't have a problem
with
them refusing to accept advertising. I have no desire to see adverts for
cornflakes or whatever on the BBC.

It's not as big a problem as you would think. Here we have both
commerical stations and a tax supported one, besides many pay ones. They
show programs uninterrupted from start to finish, and the commerical
stations add commercials, while the pay and tax ones show program trailers
and so on.

BBC prime shows both trailers and shorts in the time.

The US practice of interrupting a program to show a commercial bothers me,
but I have not seen anything like it since I have been here.

The commercial stations in the UK interupt the programmes also. It's not as
bad as in the US, but a 1 hour programme will have probably 4 interuptions
of up to 5 minutes each. Some of the satellite 'prime' stations such as Sky
One have commercial breaks almost as bad as the US, as in the first break
will be just a couple of minutes after the opening credits. Some of the
independant - i.e. non Sky - stations are as bad, if not worse than the US
ones.

Arfa

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Peter Hucker:

That's why I record everything. I watch things when I have the time, not when they're on. And I can skip adverts and pause.

MythTV?

Bit torrent and Chinese streaming sites.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <fbnXk.3974$fI2.1182@newsfe10.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

The commercial stations in the UK interupt the programmes also. It's not
as bad as in the US, but a 1 hour programme will have probably 4
interuptions of up to 5 minutes each. Some of the satellite 'prime'
stations such as Sky One have commercial breaks almost as bad as the
US, as in the first break will be just a couple of minutes after the
opening credits. Some of the independant - i.e. non Sky - stations are
as bad, if not worse than the US ones.

The amount of advertising is controlled in the UK. And all the mainstream
channels take their breaks at exactly the same time - to try and prevent
channel hopping. Which looks dreadful on progs not made for this system -
they simply crash out of them.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.