[TelevisionUser]

Actually, Freeview doesn't do too badly in terms of channel variety when compared with what's on offer abroad:-

Ireland - Saorview: http://www.saorview.ie/help-support/...view-channels/ (8 free TV channels)

France - TNT: http://www.tvnt.net/programme-tv-tnt-199.html (18 free TV channels)

Spain - TDT: http://www.formulatv.com/canales/ (22 free national TV channels + usually 1 regional TV channel)

Now go and compare that with what's available in the UK: http://www.freeview.co.uk/Channels

Freeview isn't that bad after all, is it?

[sparkplugs]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

Actually, Freeview doesn't do too badly in terms of channel variety when compared with what's on offer abroad:-

Ireland - Saorview: http://www.saorview.ie/help-support/...view-channels/ (8 free TV channels)

France - TNT: http://www.tvnt.net/programme-tv-tnt-199.html (18 free TV channels)

Spain - TDT: http://www.formulatv.com/canales/ (22 free national TV channels + usually 1 regional TV channel)

Now go and compare that with what's available in the UK: http://www.freeview.co.uk/Channels

Freeview isn't that bad after all, is it?

You missed out Australia and New Zealand's versions of Freeview! However, I couldn't agree with you more about what you said above! OK, so the picture quality isn't the best in the world, but the choice is certainly lovely! I think that anybody who negatively criticizes our Freeview system again should be forced to watch QVC for a whole week non-stop!!!! :

[Caxton]

Originally Posted by carl wood

i understand you have to pay a tv license to watch freeview, so how is it FREE

You have to buy a television before you can view so no it is not free and you also have to pay for the electricity to run it too.

[Charnham]

the choice is nothing, ever since I got a flat screen, most of the channels appear "soft" during action, with a fair few of those, simply blocky, shows like CSI Miami are a great example of this. Freeview is utterly unable to deliver such shows without it being noticeable.

[ty webb]

Originally Posted by Charnham

the choice is nothing, ever since I got a flat screen, most of the channels appear "soft" during action, with a fair few of those, simply blocky, shows like CSI Miami are a great example of this. Freeview is utterly unable to deliver such shows without it being noticeable.

You may need to adjust the settings on your tv if its too "soft", what make of tv is it? Are you viewing Freeview through the in-built tuner in the tv? (my tv has a pretty average in-built freeview tuner) Maybe buying a freeview receiver set-top box may help? Check the aerial connections etc, which transmitter you receive your freeview from. Lots of permutations and possible solutions. If you need a Freeview set-top box (non-recording) grab a Technika STBHDIS2010 for around the 20 odd quid mark on flea-bay via Tesco Outlet.

[Charnham]

well I used to view it from a PVR into a CRT TV, but I finally "upgraded" and no matter what I do, to the settings of TV, I cant hide the picture blocking or slight distortion.

[Mickey_T]

You wont fix it as it's down to 70% of Freeview being low resolution and bitrate starved.

The 'CON' muxes are the worst, only really suitable for viewing on CRT's or very small flat screens.

[David (2)]

Mostly freeview. Ch5 is one of the worst offenders along with the other ch5 channels & itv4

[Eston Bleu]

I'd rather have 10 channels that don't endlessly recycle their content, in better quality than more channels with lower quality stuffed full of repeats.

The illusion of choice: do you want your sandwich with one lump of shit or two?

[David (2)]

How many people wonder why things like sky one sky sports & sky movies are not on freeview and are disappointed when they realise they are not.

I also think one of the bbc extras should have been a sport channel. This would have been a digital exclusive pre dso and a major driver for early take up. They did it for kids programming, so why not sport

[Winston_1]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

Actually, Freeview doesn't do too badly in terms of channel variety when compared with what's on offer abroad:-

Ireland - Saorview: http://www.saorview.ie/help-support/...view-channels/ (8 free TV channels)

France - TNT: http://www.tvnt.net/programme-tv-tnt-199.html (18 free TV channels)

Spain - TDT: http://www.formulatv.com/canales/ (22 free national TV channels + usually 1 regional TV channel)

Now go and compare that with what's available in the UK: http://www.freeview.co.uk/Channels

Freeview isn't that bad after all, is it?

France may only have 18 free channels (19 actually with local TV, plus there are 4 additional HD simulcasts), but there are no +1s, shopping, slapper on the sofa, or shared streams. Take all that crap out of Freeview and the comparison does not appear so bad.

[spiney2]

.....well its all a big frig innit ?

on digital was a subscription service.

freeview was an ad hoc rescue of uk public service tv by greg dyke.

the original problem was that dvbt1 does not work as well as originally intended. thus wrecking the on digital business model. almost bankruptiong itv. and even now still limiting the amount of stuff on Topup.

dvbt2 is much better but we "committed" to the older sytem.

the reduced revenue from poor capacity is why theres all those crap channels and reduced bitrates.

meanwhile flogging off of the uhf band is going on AS IF dvbt1 does work as originally intended ..........

[Muzer]

Originally Posted by Winston_1

France may only have 18 free channels (19 actually with local TV, plus there are 4 additional HD simulcasts), but there are no +1s, shopping, slapper on the sofa, or shared streams. Take all that crap out of Freeview and the comparison does not appear so bad.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it was *this exact comparison* that someone else made and I refuted in another thread. Please find it, once again I'm too lazy.

[David (2)]

I think it was even worse than that. Not only were signal power levels pitifull at the start, some masts also had notched footprints to avoid interference with other areas resulting in very poor or zero reception. Some masts broadcast their original onDigital services outside the previous analogue freq band meaning new oversized widebands needed, or poor service would result. Then there were the relay masts which didn't get ondigital at all. No wonder it all failed, no wonder sky satellite cleaned up. I don't know when dvb-t2 became avaliable to produce hardware but must have been some time after 1998.

I often think that nothing should have been rolled.out halfhearted, and only a full national service should have been considered from day 1.

[Muzer]

Originally Posted by David (2)

I don't know when dvb-t2 became avaliable to produce hardware but must have been some time after 1998.

Er, what? 2009, I think... unless you meant 8k mode, in which case it was probably early 2000s...

[Colin_London]

Freeview HD soft launched on 2/12/09 from Crystal Palace & Winter Hill, but equipment (apart from a Humax STB IIRC) wasn't readily available until March 2010.

I got my Freeview HD Sony only a few weeks in advance of 4hd going live.

[Winston_1]

Originally Posted by Muzer

Er, what? 2009, I think......

Which is some time after 1998 - 11 years in fact.

[Winston_1]

Originally Posted by spiney2

.....well its all a big frig innit ?

the original problem was that dvbt1 does not work as well as originally intended. thus wrecking the on digital business model. almost bankruptiong itv. and even now still limiting the amount of stuff on Topup.

dvbt2 is much better but we "committed" to the older sytem.

the reduced revenue from poor capacity is why theres all those crap channels and reduced bitrates.

meanwhile flogging off of the uhf band is going on AS IF dvbt1 does work as originally intended ..........

Which of course all also applies to France and Spain who manage to avoid all those crap channels.

[Like_I_care]

Originally Posted by Colin_London

Exactly - stop whinging. If you want more channels go pay for them.

There are plenty of people who are more than happy with what Freeview offers, many of whom could easily afford Pay TV if they really wanted.

I don't believe that, if you could afford Sky/Virginmedia then I think people would have it.

Its such a tiny percentage of a households income and offers such great family entertainment then it doesn't make sense not to have pay TV.

Our Sky sub is nothing when considering my income and my wife's income combined.

[Like_I_care]

Originally Posted by Winston_1

Which of course all also applies to France and Spain who manage to avoid all those crap channels.

A very good point, Its not that all free tv is crap, its just free TV in the UK is crap.

[Like_I_care]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

Actually, Freeview doesn't do too badly in terms of channel variety when compared with what's on offer abroad:-

Ireland - Saorview: http://www.saorview.ie/help-support/...view-channels/ (8 free TV channels)

France - TNT: http://www.tvnt.net/programme-tv-tnt-199.html (18 free TV channels)

Spain - TDT: http://www.formulatv.com/canales/ (22 free national TV channels + usually 1 regional TV channel)

Now go and compare that with what's available in the UK: http://www.freeview.co.uk/Channels

Freeview isn't that bad after all, is it?

It is bad, quality not quantity kidda.

[lstar337]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

I don't believe that, if you could afford Sky/Virginmedia then I think people would have it.

Twoddle! Plenty of people who can afford Sky choose not to have it.

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

Its such a tiny percentage of a households income and offers such great family entertainment then it doesn't make sense not to have pay TV.

Not if you are the kind of family that does things other than sit around on their arse all day watching television.

In our household we probably only watch about an hour of television a day. That makes Sky very poor value for money.

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

Our Sky sub is nothing when considering my income and my wife's income combined.

Boasting about your income only makes me think it is a lot less than you make out.

[Like_I_care]

Originally Posted by lstar337

Twoddle! Plenty of people who can afford Sky choose not to have it.

Not if you are the kind of family that does things other than sit around on their arse all day watching television.

In our household we probably only watch about an hour of television a day. That makes Sky very poor value for money.

Boasting about your income only makes me think it is a lot less than you make out.

Edit*

Just been through your posting history, you're a typical DS Sky hater so I think we will just have to agree to disagree and go our own way lol.

[David (2)]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

I don't believe that, if you could afford Sky/Virginmedia then I think people would have it.

Its such a tiny percentage of a households income and offers such great family entertainment then it doesn't make sense not to have pay TV.

Our Sky sub is nothing when considering my income and my wife's income combined.

It maybe nothing to you but 55+ pounds pm is a large amount to some people. As i have said before due to lack of digital via an aerial them only freeviewLite after DSO most people here do have sky but many are on min package due to cost. Many dont have sky+ let alone multiroom. Our retired friend over the road cant even afford to use her central heating in winter.
For 55 pm i can drive my car for a month so theres no debate on the matter, we simply cant justify skys prices.

[Badvok]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

Its such a tiny percentage of a households income and offers such great family entertainment then it doesn't make sense not to have pay TV.

I guess you have no idea of the amount real people earn in the real world