[alanwarwic]

Whilst it has quite a few pages it pretty much damns Ofcoms proposals with regards to spectrum and HDTV.

It is well worth reading. It really makes Ofcom sound like 3 year olds.(I'm more prone to the view that they are self serving crooks.)

http://www.dtg.org.uk/publications/r...dtt_future.pdf
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...-freeview.html

[soulboy77]

I'm not surprised, Ofcom have already made a mess of radio which doesn't inspire confidence in their plans for DTT. But we shouldn't lay the blame for everthing at their front door. It is the government that is turning Ofcom into a revenue generating centre and forgetting that it has other duties.

[ProDave]

Two points I note:

Even DTG are advocating a complete switch at some time to DVB-T2. Yet further evidence that every single dtt stb, pvr and idtv in use at the moment is doomed to premature obsollecence.

DTG make NO mention at all about the soon to be launched BBC/PSB Freesat service, which will make satellite HD PVR's etc freely available in the shops to anyone without needing Sky or ANY element of pay tv whatsoever. Why didn't they mention this as one of the alternative forms of HD? (prefering only to mention the subscription HD satellite, cable and iptv providers)

[alanwarwic]

They mentioned all services in its 'competitiveness section (page 8), HDTV Satellite, HDTV via broadband and HDTV via cable.

Their main point being that Ofcom's proposals almost doom HDTV terrestial from the beginning.

Without any incentives for takeup there will be little manufactured/little bought.

And they are right. Most will flock to Freesat with its free HDTV. (ITV and BBC for starters).
I even imagine Freesat will cause many people to cancel Sky if the box is less than £100 for HDTV.

[Westward]

What's the point of duplicating HD services on terrestrial when virtually everyone will be able to get them via cable or Freesat?

Do you really want to gift terrestrial spectrum to the greedy shareholders of ITV and five (when it could be auctioned for the public good) just to serve people who are too lazy to get Freesat fitted?

Ofcom's duties do not include giving away spectrum for this purpose when there are many other possible uses.

Let the market decide the best use for it.

[alanwarwic]

Originally Posted by Westward

What's the point of duplicating HD services on terrestrial when virtually everyone will be able to get them via cable or Freesat?
(when it could be auctioned for the public good) Let the market decide the best use for it.

If there is no point in HDTV there is no point in SDTV and thus zero point in Terrestial. This could be certainly argued but the sole No HDTV argument is not logical.

Freeview only succeeded due to the public service commitments combined with manufacturers commitments, incuding commitement from Sky.

Auctioned for public good via Ofcom at the moment can be described as 'Fire Sale' or 'Lucky Dip'

[Ray Cathode]

Originally Posted by Westward

What's the point of duplicating HD services on terrestrial when virtually everyone will be able to get them via cable or Freesat?

Do you really want to gift terrestrial spectrum to the greedy shareholders of ITV and five (when it could be auctioned for the public good) just to serve people who are too lazy to get Freesat fitted?

Ofcom's duties do not include giving away spectrum for this purpose when there are many other possible uses.

Let the market decide the best use for it.

I want HD on terrestrial not satellite. If it has to start with simulcasts of the analogue channels, then that is fair enough. Hey even $ky could be invited in as well, but then they don't like providing FTA channels.

[tellytart1]

Originally Posted by Westward

What's the point of duplicating HD services on terrestrial when virtually everyone will be able to get them via cable or Freesat?

Because not everywhere is cabled, so that rules out getting HD over cable. Many buildings aren't allowed to errect satellite dishes, or can't get a clear view of the satellite, rendering them unsuitable for HD over satellite.

HD over terrestrial is the only viable option for quite a large number of people.

[djmark]

If there is only ever going to be 4/5 freeview hd channels after ofcon sell the spectrum off, I will give up freeview and go the freesat route. (Telewest gave up cabling about a mile away)

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Whilst it has quite a few pages it pretty much damns Ofcoms proposals with regards to spectrum and HDTV.

It is well worth reading. It really makes Ofcom sound like 3 year olds.(I'm more prone to the view that they are self serving crooks.)

http://www.dtg.org.uk/publications/r...dtt_future.pdf
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...-freeview.html

I have read it and spoken to the DTG. Ofcom have spent public money to try to justify why they should not do any real work on the future of the DTT platform.

The spec for the DVB T2 is not even finalised so how they can base any plans on a technical spec that is not even finished exposes Ofcom as utter idiots. It will be approximately 3 years before a single DVB T2 receiver is on the market. Plus none of the current Freeview set top boxes or any of the HD ready LCD TVs will be able to receive the new standard.

Ofcom doesn't understand anything to with broadcasting that’s been shown in the Rapture appeal against them. They struggled to understand how a Sky box works. I understand there is also a damming response from Freeview as well.

Lets face it all previous technical decisions made by the UK regulator have proved to be disastrous On Digital, BSB and the Dmac standard, Pal+ where are they now?

The DTG has estimated that the British public have invested £15 billion in new HD TV's and Freeview STB's.

Strangely Sky wants to adopt the new Mpeg4 for their Picnic service and I think Ofcom has jumped on the DVB T2 standard to try to help their friends at Sky. I can't see any other reason for such a sloppy and lazy report from Ofcom.

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by Westward

What's the point of duplicating HD services on terrestrial when virtually everyone will be able to get them via cable or Freesat?

Do you really want to gift terrestrial spectrum to the greedy shareholders of ITV and five (when it could be auctioned for the public good) just to serve people who are too lazy to get Freesat fitted?

Ofcom's duties do not include giving away spectrum for this purpose when there are many other possible uses.

Let the market decide the best use for it.

Ofcom claim in their Draft Annual Plan 2008/9 that the digital dividend should be for the maximum benefit of the UK citizens. However Ofcom also then claim that the market will do this by selling the spectrum to the highest bidder.

Obviously the market approach will never deliver the maximum benefit to the UK citizens but will deliver the most profitable benefit to the UK consumers. That’s quite different. Ofcom was set up by the government and is run independently and is clearly out of control.

[Westward]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

Ofcom claim in their Draft Annual Plan 2008/9 that the digital dividend should be for the maximum benefit of the UK citizens. However Ofcom also then claim that the market will do this by selling the spectrum to the highest bidder.

Obviously the market approach will never deliver the maximum benefit to the UK citizens but will deliver the most profitable benefit to the UK consumers. That’s quite different. Ofcom was set up by the government and is run independently and is clearly out of control.

On the contrary, Ofcom is doing exactly what their masters in the Government want them to do, namely auction off the spectrum so that the proceeds go into the Treasury coffers. Giving away spectrum for free would have brought them into conflict with the Government. So much for being out of control!

You're making the assumption that the maximum benefit would be obtained by setting this spectrum aside for HD use, but there's no evidence that it's what most people want (apart from the enthusiasts on forums like this). There are several other possible uses for it. including broadband, local & mobile TV. Therefore the only fair way to decide what to do with it is to award it to the bidder that values it the most.

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by Westward

On the contrary, Ofcom is doing exactly what their masters in the Government want them to do, namely auction off the spectrum so that the proceeds go into the Treasury coffers. Giving away spectrum for free would have brought them into conflict with the Government. So much for being out of control!

You're making the assumption that the maximum benefit would be obtained by setting this spectrum aside for HD use, but there's no evidence that it's what most people want (apart from the enthusiasts on forums like this). There are several other possible uses for it. Including broadband, local & mobile TV. Therefore the only fair way to decide what to do with it is to award it to the bidder that values it the most.

Ofcom has no masters. IT was set up to operate outside of government and cannot be influenced by MP's. That’s word for word from Directors of Ofcom.

I was not talking about giving away spectrum but simply maximising it for the citizens. A market approach will not achieve that. I totally disagree, the way to maximise the benefit would be to look at what practical uses it has? It appears that Digital TV is the most obvious use and then work out how the maximum benefit for all citizens can be achieved.

Yes any offer or award of spectrum should have a financial element to it but which in more beneficial a Quiz TV channel or a free to air channel with quality original British productions?

Ofcom wants to sell it to the highest bidder with no regard for the benefit to the UK citizens. Although they claim they do.

[SimonBlackham]

The problem is what is the cost/benefit...

The cost to us as Taxpayers and the benefit to the citizens - ie us.

Therefore we are on both sides of the equation as the cost (or revenue) is also a benefit to us.

OFCOM can only really look at one side - so they are (obviously to me) looking at the side of maximising revenue and everything else is just a distraction. If they 'give away' any spectrum for however long and whatever reason then they are increasing the cost side of the equation so they will do anything and everything not to.

Is that really what we want a regulator for.


It is nice to have a large number of channels to choose from on Freeview - but what is the percentage of viewers of the main 5 channels and their children compared with the rest? - I for one would say if OFCOM cannot give spectrum for HD then Freeview should be re-organised so there is sufficient spare bandwidth to progress the main channels to HD. The revenue would not decrease and so OFCOM would be happy - and those who want the 'extra' channels could go to 'Freesat/BBC' when available.

Government should get involved in these decisions as we are heading for an almighty crash with huge investment by the public and state being wasted.

[rediproof]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

I was not talking about giving away spectrum but simply maximising it for the citizens. A market approach will not achieve that. I totally disagree, the way to maximise the benefit would be to look at what practical uses it has? It appears that Digital TV is the most obvious use and then work out how the maximum benefit for all citizens can be achieved.

So their are no other practical uses for this spectrum hence the reason why the likes of Google, AT&T and Verizon have bid so far a total of $19.1bn for the 700 MHz spectrum in the US. So the idea of accessing the web on the move, i-phone type services or making VOIP calls in the same way as on a mobile has no benefits?

Report after report shows the decline in TV viewing and take up of online content. If HD is so important then why has ITV ploughed money into their webservices and not HD? To be honest apart from the BBC, SKY and C4 what other UK channels has invested in HD?

I don't see the crappy small channels on freeview, most of them can't even afford to keep running on the current SD platform, investing in HD.

[Charnham]

the idea of web on the move, is a nice dream but often it doesnt always work out, its either a tiny screen, really slow, poor coverage or just really expensive.

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by rediproof

So their are no other practical uses for this spectrum hence the reason why the likes of Google, AT&T and Verizon have bid so far a total of $19.1bn for the 700 MHz spectrum in the US. So the idea of accessing the web on the move, i-phone type services or making VOIP calls in the same way as on a mobile has no benefits?

Report after report shows the decline in TV viewing and take up of online content. If HD is so important then why has ITV ploughed money into their webservices and not HD? To be honest apart from the BBC, SKY and C4 what other UK channels has invested in HD?

I don't see the crappy small channels on freeview, most of them can't even afford to keep running on the current SD platform, investing in HD.

Ofcom did a consultaion and found the majority of freeview users wanted more channel choice.

I'm not sure what reports you are refering to but a 4% rise in TV viewing was reported just the other day in the FT. While the main networks continue to lose audience share this is not a sign that TV is attracting less viewers.

10 Million freeview set top boxes and millions of large LCD and Plasma screens all show that TV is as popular as ever.

Google, AT&T and Verizon are not going to offer you or I mobile web etc for free. As I said Ofcom is contridicting itself. Either the spectrum must benifit the citizen or its to be sold off to the highest bidder and used to benift the consumer. However that is a choice of one or the other?

I can't ask why shortsighted ITV has one taken so long to embrace the web and 2 cut its investment in original programming. You need to ask ITV why they have made these decisions. I suspect the answer is that inthe short term they made quick money out of viewers calling into quiz prgrammes.

[reslfj]

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Whilst it has quite a few pages it pretty much damns Ofcoms proposals with regards to spectrum and HDTV.

This thread was written before Ofcom published most of the responses and can only relate to the DTG response.

There are very few reflections above on the DTG arguments much of witch is "I think" , "I believe" , "Unrealistic" and very few facts.

But quoting such comments from DTG does NOT make them anymore true.

Start reading the texts. Think about the arguments ( not yours, DTG's and the other responses) - critically - and then post.

Use this thread to post or merge the threads.

Lars

PS! Personally I find the DTG response has some very valid points, but also some extremely one-eyed arguments that will not hold up in court - not in any court.

[alanwarwic]

more facts than anything Ofcom have said which is summed up as

'Lets flog it and hope'

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

more facts than anything Ofcom have said which is summed up as

'Lets flog it and hope'

That is exactly what Ofcom is thinking. That and just look at the effort they go to not do anything real. They call it regulation with a light touch.

Translated that means do as little as possible but produce a lot of reports on why we don't need to do anything.

Then look at the consultations that are started on the wrong premise. If the regulator knew anything about the world of tecommunications and broadcasting their determinations wouldn't be getting Appealed to the Competition Commission almost on a weekly basis.

I think you will find that every moible network has appealed against them. The cost to the public purse must be millions.

Remember BSB, then On Digital say no more the regulator has a perfect record of getting all platform licenses wrong.

[rediproof]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

If the regulator knew anything about the world of tecommunications and broadcasting their determinations wouldn't be getting Appealed to the Competition Commission almost on a weekly basis.

Because litigation is a good way for incumbent operators to tie up proposed changes in order to prevent loses to their business. It's the Microsoft model, spend a couple of million on taking it through the courts for a couple of years instead of accepting the decision and losing more in profits.

Then you have the case of people like yourself, who having not got the result you wanted and decide to take Ofcom to court which as you quite rightly state costs the public purse.

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

I think you will find that every moible network has appealed against them. The cost to the public purse must be millions.

Look at why the mobile companies are appealing, Ofcom wants to take spectrum off Vodaphone and O2 to refarm some of the 2G spectrum and make it available for others to use for 3G services, because of this 3 is not happy having spent millions on rolling out their network. All the operators are not happy with having their prices capped and finally the option to allow users to change networks easier has them all up in arms. I can see why they don't like what Ofcom is trying to do.

[reslfj]

Originally Posted by rediproof

Because litigation is a good way for incumbent operators to tie up proposed changes in order to prevent loses to their business.....
I can see why they don't like what Ofcom is trying to do.

In the sales business we call it 'spreading FUD' - "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt".

Very useful when your product or service doesn't match your competitors or you have another agenda - but very far from any decent moral behavior.
Lars

[Rapture TV]

Originally Posted by rediproof

Because litigation is a good way for incumbent operators to tie up proposed changes in order to prevent loses to their business. It's the Microsoft model, spend a couple of million on taking it through the courts for a couple of years instead of accepting the decision and losing more in profits.

Then you have the case of people like yourself, who having not got the result you wanted and decide to take Ofcom to court which as you quite rightly state costs the public purse.



Look at why the mobile companies are appealing, Ofcom wants to take spectrum off Vodaphone and O2 to refarm some of the 2G spectrum and make it available for others to use for 3G services, because of this 3 is not happy having spent millions on rolling out their network. All the operators are not happy with having their prices capped and finally the option to allow users to change networks easier has them all up in arms. I can see why they don't like what Ofcom is trying to do.

Perhaps you should look at our case in detail instead of simply reading a one page selective summary from the Guardian? Ofcom did not follow the rules or stick to the Oftel guidelines instead it made up its own rules.

If Ofcom had not done anything wrong then there would have been no grounds for an Appeal. You have to have grounds and show what grounds there are before an Appeal is granted.

In the Rapture case Ofcom was shown not to have investigated the evidence and had ignored the Oftel guidelines that it claimed it was following.

Yes some big companies can use the legal process to abuse their position like BSkyB and Microsoft. However this is made even more likely when a stupid regulator fails to either understand the market place or simply doesn't want to regulate for other reasons. The EU took on Microsoft and after a number of Appeals and delaying tactics the EU won and Microsoft had to pay approximately $600 million.

Ofcom has proved itself to be incapable of performing its role. This is why everyone is now taking action against them. Rapture is not a big company and did not take the Appeal action lightly. If it had not been for the law firm Orrick and the services of the QC's then Rapture would not have been able to seek justice in this matter. I'm sure Ofcom thought it was unlikely that Rapture would be able to successfully raise its Appeal. Ofcom from the beginning had senior counsel. Rapture only had a QC after the first case management hearing, where it did not go well for our lawyer. He then realised that we need the help of counsel as well.

If you want to know who said what in the Rapture Appeal then read the full transcripts. http://www.rapturetv.com/news_article.php?News=15
You will see from day 2 that Ofcom admit that they did not investigate any of the central costs and instead just used a out of date document that Sky had produced which is a internal document and therefore not published.

Ofcom showed its self as useless when it came to understanding the technology and didn't seem to understand simple costs and revenue or the fact that if someone pays £50 towards a product that has a total cost of £150 then the balance that would be left would be £100.

This is not difficult stuff to understand. Ofcom showed its true colours.

Your comments seem to be saying that you think that an organisation like Ofcom should be allowed to operate without fear of being questioned or Appealed?

Ofcom has no right to take a license away from an operator before the license has run its course. To do so will undermine the whole industry. How can a mobile operator justify to its shareholders further investment when at any time Ofcom may decide to remove the operator’s license and sell off again the spectrum that they have already bought?

Most of the price capping came from the EU not Ofcom. The EU roaming price reductions came from the EU not Ofcom, the soon to be introduced EU data roaming reductions are also from the EU not Ofcom.

In fact I can see nothing good that has come from Ofcom so far. Not even the £126 million running costs per year and their 800 staff.

Plus just to show how Ofcom has ignored the true impact of what they have proposed for HD on DTT. Did you know that for all the technical spec changes to have the desired affect each home will need to have 2 TV aerials fitted for a DVB-T2 receiver? Ofcom made no mention of this extra cost to the consumer or the fact that not a single HD ready TV will be able to receive the new HD services without another set top box?

Ofcom's claims show that they are incompetent. I'm not surprised that both broadcasters and telecom companies are starting to Appeal the outcomes from Ofcom but that’s what happens when you fail to follow the rules.

[reslfj]

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

Perhaps you should look at our case in detail instead of simply reading a one page selective summary from the Guardian? Ofcom did not follow the rules or stick to the Oftel guidelines instead it made up its own rules.

If Ofcom had not done anything wrong then there would have been no grounds for an Appeal. You have to have grounds and show what grounds there are before an Appeal is granted.

In the Rapture case Ofcom was shown not to have investigated the evidence and had ignored the Oftel guidelines that it claimed it was following.

That you are mad at Ofcom - maybe even for good reasons - has nothing to do with this consultation.
I understand the court is sitting - and it is good practice not to comment during that period.
If you DO want to comment anyway - make your own thread.

Originally Posted by Rapture TV

Did you know that for all the technical spec changes to have the desired affect each home will need to have 2 TV aerials fitted for a DVB-T2 receiver?

This is absolutely NOT the case.

Originally Posted by DVB.org CM 13

The DVB-T2 specification shall be able to provide at least the minimum specified increase
in payload capacity over DVB-T using existing transmitter sites and
masts broadcasting to existing DVB-T domestic antenna and cable installations.

Read the available texts before you post 'loose rumours and slander'.

It is, however, possible to improve the quality of reception by using 'diversity receivers'.
Such receivers for DVB-T are available today. Take a look at Dibcom

Lars

[tghe-retford]

There is a BBC article on the auction today, where BECTU have joined DTG in being critical of Ofcom's plans:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7241395.stm