Absolutely. It's a shame that some people here seem to be displaying a vested interest (broadcast industry employees?) or are clinging to the past.
Freeview doesn't need to be a premium platform - it can still be there to carry the channels people actually care about - with satellite/cable/internet for those seeking more choice
The bandwidth could also be used to provide the full range of channels to more Freeview sites. I wonder if the limitation of Freeview to 200 sites with all channels was a cunning move by telecom companies so they could grab the bandwidth later?
But also highly biased given that it's by the broadcast industry, for the broadcast industry. It's about as useful as EE commissioning a report to say that mobile operators should get every last MHz (and that they should get it for free)
As opposed to the complete unbiased mobile phone industry!
Where I live we don't even get ITV 3 and 4. All we have are the full package of BBC channels, two ITV channels, all the Channel 4 stations and Channel 5. It's pathetic as other areas have 60 channels.
But there is a TV system that has been running for some years and that people use.
And which is decreasing in use as people look to other, better forms of entertainment, and does not necessarily represent the most useful use of limited spectrum
These are new frequencies for mobile phones that will require new phones presumably. Plenty of spectrum at higher frequencies but will need more base stations and so lower profits for the mobile phone companies.
The biggest complaint about mobile phones is lack of coverage in rural areas, unlikely to have any impact on that.
Higher frequencies mean poor in building coverage - look at 3, who suffers from a 3G network running exclusively on 2.1GHz. Using higher frequencies (such as the 2.6GHz that was already auctioned) will make that worse
The use of lower frequencies really does help rural coverage. O2 and Vodafone are able to cover much wider areas on 900MHz than EE or 3 can on 2100. That's also why 800MHz was auctioned off for 4G.
And installing loads of masts in areas that don't really need it is wastefully expensive and very hard to do when you've got the NIMBY lobby.
So you're basically asking everyone to pay for higher phone bills and worse coverage because you can't be bothered to put up a satellite dish?
The bandwidth could also be used to provide the full range of channels to more Freeview sites. I wonder if the limitation of Freeview to 200 sites with all channels was a cunning move by telecom companies so they could grab the bandwidth later?
But *why* do we need the "full range of channels"? There's no reason why Freeview must be 7 or 8 multiplexes when there are superior transmission methods like satellite, cable or internet - and especially when the commercial multiplexes are generally filled with low bitrate rot.
I'd assume the lack of commercial multiplexes from smaller transmitters is because the multiplex owners don't want to pay for the increased costs, hence it being limited to main stations and more important relays
As opposed to the complete unbiased mobile phone industry!
Which I did point out in my comment that you quoted. But it's hard to deny that mobile data is big and will only get bigger, requiring more spectrum to meet demand
.... So you're basically asking everyone to pay for higher phone bills and worse coverage because you can't be bothered to put up a satellite dish?
But *why* do we need the "full range of channels"? There's no reason why Freeview must be 7 or 8 multiplexes when there are superior transmission methods like satellite, cable or internet - and especially when the commercial multiplexes are generally filled with low bitrate rot. ....
I live reasonably near to the very centre of London, only an hours drive or so away.
We have no gas, no mains sewerage, no street lighting, no pavements. No chance of ever getting fibre broadband and we are stuck with low speed ADSL for as far into the future as BT can predict (as told to me by my local BT team only 2 weeks ago). If we are lucky we can get mobile phone coverage on a good day but no prospect of data coverage unless we drive out of the village.
And did I mention we live in a conservation area and we are forbidden by the local council to install a dish on our house?
Freeview DTT as principle suits me, and millions like me, just fine.
I live reasonably near to the very centre of London, only an hours drive or so away.
We have no gas, no mains sewerage, no street lighting, no pavements. No chance of ever getting fibre broadband and we are stuck with low speed ADSL for as far into the future as BT can predict (as told to me by my local BT team only 2 weeks ago). If we are lucky we can get mobile phone coverage on a good day but no prospect of data coverage unless we drive out of the village.
And did I mention we live in a conservation area and we are forbidden by the local council to install a dish on our house?
Freeview DTT as principle suits me, and millions like me, just fine.
And I think all of those unfortunate coincidences place you in the tiniest of minorities, not "millions like you".
There will be millions of 4G customers, meanwhile, who would like faster speeds and uncongested networks - a much better use of limited and precious spectrum - and can put up a dish if they really want to watch Babestation.
I'm not sure why you live in an area so devoid of modern conveniences, but I live somewhere only 5 hours from London and could be described as rural - and I do have mains sewerage, fast broadband, reasonable 3G mobile coverage, street lighting and pavements. Not a conservation area, fortunately, so I can have satellite too - I wouldn't want that NIMBYesque rubbish affecting my property
Do you genuinely think that the situation you are in is experienced by many? You may think that Freeview "suits you" but ultimately the needs of the many outweigh the few
I live reasonably near to the very centre of London, only an hours drive or so away.
We have no gas, no mains sewerage, no street lighting, no pavements. No chance of ever getting fibre broadband and we are stuck with low speed ADSL for as far into the future as BT can predict (as told to me by my local BT team only 2 weeks ago). If we are lucky we can get mobile phone coverage on a good day but no prospect of data coverage unless we drive out of the village.
And did I mention we live in a conservation area and we are forbidden by the local council to install a dish on our house?
Freeview DTT as principle suits me, and millions like me, just fine.
Wow that's bad I'm surprised that anyone could sell houses well where you live then!
As regards conservation areas special types of satellite dishes could be used and hidden as much as possible, with regular dishes being banned still, unless they can be hidden very well.
Wow that's bad I'm surprised that anyone could sell houses well where you live then!
As regards conservation areas special types of satellite dishes could be used and hidden as much as possible, with regular dishes being banned still, unless they can be hidden very well.
You also (of course) don't necessarily need to install the dish on the house, a plinth down the bottom of the garden might be an option.
Conservation area ? Sounds like the council are trying to conserve the dark ages !
...Do you genuinely think that the situation you are in is experienced by many? You may think that Freeview "suits you" but ultimately the needs of the many outweigh the few ...
Difficult to analyse, but a quick google led me to the Which website that informs me that 4 million households rely on oil for their heating in which case, possibly, they may be in a similar position to us for at least some of those aspects of life in a true rural area.
I am disappointed by your last remark which in effect means 'I must have what I want, so stuff the everyone else'. But I'm old enough to know that's life I guess.
Difficult to analyse, but a quick google led me to the Which website that informs me that 4 million households rely on oil for their heating in which case, possibly, they may be in a similar position to us for at least some of those aspects of life in a true rural area.
I am disappointed by your last remark which in effect means 'I must have what I want, so stuff the everyone else'. But I'm old enough to know that's life I guess.
I don't have mains gas or indeed central heating either, but that has no bearing on my ability to bolt a dish to the wall. I don't doubt that lots of people have one or more of your circumstances but I was saying that you must be in a very rare position to have all of them - and honestly it's time conservation areas moved with the times and allowed for discreet satellite dish usage anyway, just as spectrum allocation should move with the times to meet modern needs
My last remark was really "this is a better use for the spectrum for more people than TV broadcasting, so it should get more of the spectrum as time goes on". Nothing about me or my circumstances personally (although I'm in the majority).
You also (of course) don't necessarily need to install the dish on the house, a plinth down the bottom of the garden might be an option.
Conservation area ? Sounds like the council are trying to conserve the dark ages !
So now it is suggested I have to look a dish in my garden?
The idea behind conservation areas is to try and preserve Britain's vernacular building heritage for future generations, not for me - for Britain's future generations. But I think you know this and are pulling my leg!
And I think all of those unfortunate coincidences place you in the tiniest of minorities, not "millions like you".
There will be millions of 4G customers, meanwhile, who would like faster speeds and uncongested networks - a much better use of limited and precious spectrum - and can put up a dish if they really want to watch Babestation.
I'm not sure why you live in an area so devoid of modern conveniences, but I live somewhere only 5 hours from London and could be described as rural - and I do have mains sewerage, fast broadband, reasonable 3G mobile coverage, street lighting and pavements. Not a conservation area, fortunately, so I can have satellite too - I wouldn't want that NIMBYesque rubbish affecting my property
Do you genuinely think that the situation you are in is experienced by many? You may think that Freeview "suits you" but ultimately the needs of the many outweigh the few
I have 4G on my phone (because it came with it, NOT because I want it).
My e mails texts and calls come through exactly the same whether I'm on 4G or 3G, any speed difference is negligible.
IT'S A PHONE!
I am happy with the DTT coverage provided by Freeview and have absolutley no wish to see its bandwith reduced.
TV was on the frequency first, there are other bands available, let the greedy mobile operators, who are busy conning people into thinking they must have 4G, use other frequencies.
So now it is suggested I have to look a dish in my garden?
The idea behind conservation areas is to try and preserve Britain's vernacular building heritage for future generations, not for me - for Britain's future generations. But I think you know this and are pulling my leg!
It's NIMBYism, pure and simple. No one is suggesting you should be allowed to have a 4 metre c-band dish on the roof but a minidish is hardly going to cause damage
I have 4G on my phone (because it came with it, NOT because I want it).
My e mails texts and calls come through exactly the same whether I'm on 4G or 3G, any speed difference is negligible.
IT'S A PHONE!
And you clearly aren't aware of the benefits that a decent mobile data network would bring - there is far more to it than how fast your emails come in.
I am happy with the DTT coverage provided by Freeview and have absolutley no wish to see its bandwith reduced.
TV was on the frequency first, there are other bands available, let the greedy mobile operators, who are busy conning people into thinking they must have 4G, use other frequencies.
Fortunately it looks like your opinion is in the minority - we should be looking at what is the best use, not luddite "it was here first and this is what I want" rubbish.
I've already suggested why you can't use other frequencies, and 4G isn't really a "con".
I don't have mains gas or indeed central heating either, but that has no bearing on my ability to bolt a dish to the wall. I don't doubt that lots of people have one or more of your circumstances but I was saying that you must be in a very rare position to have all of them - and honestly it's time conservation areas moved with the times and allowed for discreet satellite dish usage anyway, just as spectrum allocation should move with the times to meet modern needs
My last remark was really "this is a better use for the spectrum for more people than TV broadcasting, so it should get more of the spectrum as time goes on". Nothing about me or my circumstances personally (although I'm in the majority).
I realise and recognise that you are trying to be reasonable in your arguments and you are not spoiling for a verbal spat.
The two pertinent facts are that we cannot have a dish and there is no prospect whatsoever of high speed broadband - none - so this must be a reasonable combination for people who live in truly rural areas. I presume you don't have cable tv either?
I realise and recognise that you are trying to be reasonable in your arguments and you are not spoiling for a verbal spat.
The two pertinent facts are that we cannot have a dish and there is no prospect whatsoever of high speed broadband - none - so this must be a reasonable combination for people who live in truly rural areas. I presume you don't have cable tv either?
No cable. But perhaps 4G in the UHF spectrum could actually bring you the high speed broadband BT doesn't want to give to you over a phone line - just as has been trialled and is in commercial services in places like Cumbria.
It's NIMBYism, pure and simple. No one is suggesting you should be allowed to have a 4 metre c-band dish on the roof but a minidish is hardly going to cause damage
Oh Moox, it's not nimbyism at all. The planning department of my local district council sets the rules, not me.
No cable. But perhaps 4G in the UHF spectrum could actually bring you the high speed broadband BT doesn't want to give to you over a phone line - just as has been trialled and is in commercial services in places like Cumbria.
Interesting. Is it being provided at no cost to the good people of Cumbria who are receiving this service, or is the word 'commercial' very pertinent here?
I agree - I'm saying it's the council being NIMBY, not you
I do not see the logic that I can have a tall spikey 'thing' sticking out above my rooftop, but I cannot take it down and have a discrete dish on the side of my house, but as we both agree, I do not set the rules.
Interesting. Is it being provided at no cost to the good people of Cumbria who are receiving this service, or is the word 'commercial' very pertinent here?
It isn't taxpayer subsidised, so it's a fully commercial service (but at more reasonable prices than mobile broadband).
But I don't see your point. I have fast broadband due to a taxpayer subsidised project but I still have to pay for it at the same price as someone in a city. You might argue that it should be "free" but I'm not sure why.
The mobile operators would be paying licensing costs for the spectrum, just as the DTT multiplex operators do - overall, possibly more than the DTT operators after licensing costs and taxes
In South Korea they already have speeds of up to 300Mbps via mobile. In the UK there are some people who can't even get 3Mbps via a home broadband connection!
In a few years we could catch up with speeds like that, or we could keep Ideal World and Babestation on Freeview.
It isn't taxpayer subsidised, so it's a fully commercial service (but at more reasonable prices than mobile broadband).
But I don't see your point. I have fast broadband due to a taxpayer subsidised project but I still have to pay for it at the same price as someone in a city. You might argue that it should be "free" but I'm not sure why.
The mobile operators would be paying licensing costs for the spectrum, just as the DTT multiplex operators do - overall, possibly more than the DTT operators after licensing costs and taxes
Sorry Moox, I did rather mix up my terms there - apologies. With regard to the Cumbria service I meant is it being provided to customers at no greater cost than say BT would charge for their (say) fixed high speed fibre service? Maybe a small premium?
I did not mean to suggest that anyone should get broadband, of any description, for free. I would be interested in details of your own taxpayer subsidised service if you could provide a link to a website perhaps?
I do not think SDN pay for the use of the spectrum they control?
Comments
The bandwidth could also be used to provide the full range of channels to more Freeview sites. I wonder if the limitation of Freeview to 200 sites with all channels was a cunning move by telecom companies so they could grab the bandwidth later?
As opposed to the complete unbiased mobile phone industry!
And which is decreasing in use as people look to other, better forms of entertainment, and does not necessarily represent the most useful use of limited spectrum
Higher frequencies mean poor in building coverage - look at 3, who suffers from a 3G network running exclusively on 2.1GHz. Using higher frequencies (such as the 2.6GHz that was already auctioned) will make that worse
The use of lower frequencies really does help rural coverage. O2 and Vodafone are able to cover much wider areas on 900MHz than EE or 3 can on 2100. That's also why 800MHz was auctioned off for 4G.
And installing loads of masts in areas that don't really need it is wastefully expensive and very hard to do when you've got the NIMBY lobby.
So you're basically asking everyone to pay for higher phone bills and worse coverage because you can't be bothered to put up a satellite dish?
But *why* do we need the "full range of channels"? There's no reason why Freeview must be 7 or 8 multiplexes when there are superior transmission methods like satellite, cable or internet - and especially when the commercial multiplexes are generally filled with low bitrate rot.
I'd assume the lack of commercial multiplexes from smaller transmitters is because the multiplex owners don't want to pay for the increased costs, hence it being limited to main stations and more important relays
Which I did point out in my comment that you quoted. But it's hard to deny that mobile data is big and will only get bigger, requiring more spectrum to meet demand
I live reasonably near to the very centre of London, only an hours drive or so away.
We have no gas, no mains sewerage, no street lighting, no pavements. No chance of ever getting fibre broadband and we are stuck with low speed ADSL for as far into the future as BT can predict (as told to me by my local BT team only 2 weeks ago). If we are lucky we can get mobile phone coverage on a good day but no prospect of data coverage unless we drive out of the village.
And did I mention we live in a conservation area and we are forbidden by the local council to install a dish on our house?
Freeview DTT as principle suits me, and millions like me, just fine.
And I think all of those unfortunate coincidences place you in the tiniest of minorities, not "millions like you".
There will be millions of 4G customers, meanwhile, who would like faster speeds and uncongested networks - a much better use of limited and precious spectrum - and can put up a dish if they really want to watch Babestation.
I'm not sure why you live in an area so devoid of modern conveniences, but I live somewhere only 5 hours from London and could be described as rural - and I do have mains sewerage, fast broadband, reasonable 3G mobile coverage, street lighting and pavements. Not a conservation area, fortunately, so I can have satellite too - I wouldn't want that NIMBYesque rubbish affecting my property
Do you genuinely think that the situation you are in is experienced by many? You may think that Freeview "suits you" but ultimately the needs of the many outweigh the few
Wow that's bad I'm surprised that anyone could sell houses well where you live then!
As regards conservation areas special types of satellite dishes could be used and hidden as much as possible, with regular dishes being banned still, unless they can be hidden very well.
You also (of course) don't necessarily need to install the dish on the house, a plinth down the bottom of the garden might be an option.
Conservation area ? Sounds like the council are trying to conserve the dark ages !
What did you do to resolve the situation in the end?
Difficult to analyse, but a quick google led me to the Which website that informs me that 4 million households rely on oil for their heating in which case, possibly, they may be in a similar position to us for at least some of those aspects of life in a true rural area.
I am disappointed by your last remark which in effect means 'I must have what I want, so stuff the everyone else'. But I'm old enough to know that's life I guess.
You are well informed, our house has been on the market for some time with no offers.
I don't have mains gas or indeed central heating either, but that has no bearing on my ability to bolt a dish to the wall. I don't doubt that lots of people have one or more of your circumstances but I was saying that you must be in a very rare position to have all of them - and honestly it's time conservation areas moved with the times and allowed for discreet satellite dish usage anyway, just as spectrum allocation should move with the times to meet modern needs
My last remark was really "this is a better use for the spectrum for more people than TV broadcasting, so it should get more of the spectrum as time goes on". Nothing about me or my circumstances personally (although I'm in the majority).
So now it is suggested I have to look a dish in my garden?
The idea behind conservation areas is to try and preserve Britain's vernacular building heritage for future generations, not for me - for Britain's future generations. But I think you know this and are pulling my leg!
I have 4G on my phone (because it came with it, NOT because I want it).
My e mails texts and calls come through exactly the same whether I'm on 4G or 3G, any speed difference is negligible.
IT'S A PHONE!
I am happy with the DTT coverage provided by Freeview and have absolutley no wish to see its bandwith reduced.
TV was on the frequency first, there are other bands available, let the greedy mobile operators, who are busy conning people into thinking they must have 4G, use other frequencies.
It's NIMBYism, pure and simple. No one is suggesting you should be allowed to have a 4 metre c-band dish on the roof but a minidish is hardly going to cause damage
And you clearly aren't aware of the benefits that a decent mobile data network would bring - there is far more to it than how fast your emails come in.
Fortunately it looks like your opinion is in the minority - we should be looking at what is the best use, not luddite "it was here first and this is what I want" rubbish.
I've already suggested why you can't use other frequencies, and 4G isn't really a "con".
I realise and recognise that you are trying to be reasonable in your arguments and you are not spoiling for a verbal spat.
The two pertinent facts are that we cannot have a dish and there is no prospect whatsoever of high speed broadband - none - so this must be a reasonable combination for people who live in truly rural areas. I presume you don't have cable tv either?
No cable. But perhaps 4G in the UHF spectrum could actually bring you the high speed broadband BT doesn't want to give to you over a phone line - just as has been trialled and is in commercial services in places like Cumbria.
Oh Moox, it's not nimbyism at all. The planning department of my local district council sets the rules, not me.
I agree - I'm saying it's the council being NIMBY, not you
Interesting. Is it being provided at no cost to the good people of Cumbria who are receiving this service, or is the word 'commercial' very pertinent here?
I do not see the logic that I can have a tall spikey 'thing' sticking out above my rooftop, but I cannot take it down and have a discrete dish on the side of my house, but as we both agree, I do not set the rules.
It isn't taxpayer subsidised, so it's a fully commercial service (but at more reasonable prices than mobile broadband).
But I don't see your point. I have fast broadband due to a taxpayer subsidised project but I still have to pay for it at the same price as someone in a city. You might argue that it should be "free" but I'm not sure why.
The mobile operators would be paying licensing costs for the spectrum, just as the DTT multiplex operators do - overall, possibly more than the DTT operators after licensing costs and taxes
In a few years we could catch up with speeds like that, or we could keep Ideal World and Babestation on Freeview.
Sorry Moox, I did rather mix up my terms there - apologies. With regard to the Cumbria service I meant is it being provided to customers at no greater cost than say BT would charge for their (say) fixed high speed fibre service? Maybe a small premium?
I did not mean to suggest that anyone should get broadband, of any description, for free. I would be interested in details of your own taxpayer subsidised service if you could provide a link to a website perhaps?
I do not think SDN pay for the use of the spectrum they control?