PDA

View Full Version : Millions of motorists will be forced to spend hundreds of pounds replacing or co



Ponce
7th July 2010, 06:51 PM
They can control your cell phone and TV ........and now your radio........the car radios will probably have a GPS tracker.
================================================== ===================

Millions of motorists face £300 bill to install digital radios as ministers press ahead with FM switch-offBy Liz Thomas
Last updated at 9:44 AM on 7th July 2010

Millions of motorists will be forced to spend hundreds of pounds replacing or converting their car radios with new digital sets.
The coalition Government is to press on with controversial plans to switch off FM and medium wave radio in favour of digital – leaving much of the nation with no option but to pay out for new equipment both at home and in the car.
Despite serious concerns that the public neither wants nor is ready for the change, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is expected to announce he will stick with Labour’s plans for a mass switchover in the next five years.
Switchover: Cars will need to be fitted with digital radios before analogue sets become obsolete by 2015

The move will cost consumers hundreds of pounds as they are forced to update and change their analogue radios at home and in their cars, before they become obsolete.
As many as 100 million analogue radios will become largely redundant after 2015 and around 20 million car radios will be useless - leaving many without their favourite stations.
Around 20 per cent of all radio listening happens in cars but only 1 per cent of all cars currently have the capability to receive digital stations.
Motorists will either have to replace their car radios at a cost of some £300 or buy special ‘conversion’ kits that must be attached to the windscreen, often alongside Satnavs, which could also cost more than £100.

Analogue television is now extinct in the high street with digital sets now the only type on sale.
Research by Digital UK, which is tasked with overseeing television’s switchover, revealed this week that for the first time 100 per cent of sets sold were digital.
The World Cup is credited with sounding the death knell for analogue television by boosting sales of digital sets by nine per cent prompting retailers to reject the older televisions.
Consumers have increasingly been demanding televisions with digital and HD capability rendering traditional screens are now all but obsolete in the high street.
David Scott, chief executive of Digital UK, said 13,000 stores across the country were surveyed.
He added: ‘With a quarter of the country already fully switched to digital TV and a further 11 million homes due to switch next year, it’s good news that retailers have finally stopped selling analogue sets.
‘Having said that, people shouldn’t assume they need to replace their TV for switchover, virtually any old television can be easily converted to digital simply by connecting a digital box.’
This year Britons have bought nearly a million televisions a month with the average purchase price £400.
It is estimated that there are 60 million televisions in the UK – almost as many as there are people.
Last month the Office for National Statistics said the population had reached 61.8 million.

DAB sets for the home cost from £20 for a basic radio to £200 for waterproof, rechargeable versions that can be used outside.
The plans will hit motorists and pensioners hardest but most ordinary homes have two or three radios – and the expense of replacing them all will mount up for everyone.
The outgoing Labour Government was not able to put the 2015 date into its Digital Economy Act, which was rushed through during its last days of power this April.
But a Government source said it would try to stick with Labour’s planned timetable, meaning every household will have to own either a digital radio or have a TV in the next five years.
Senior Tory Lord Fowler, chair of the communications committee, warned the public ‘were not prepared’ for it.
He said: ‘These are people who do a lot of radio listening and if you’ve got four or five radios dotted around the house, then replacing them means the cost adds up.
‘The public have got to be taken with the process on this otherwise there is going to be something of an explosion of indignation.’
Digital platforms, including DAB radio, television and online accounted for 24 per cent of all radio listening in the first three months of this year, according to Rajar figures published in May.
This is an increase of almost four per cent on the same period in 2009 but still a small proportion of the nation.
Currently, DAB coverage reaches about 90 per cent of the population but is extremely patchy in hilly areas such as Snowdonia in Wales and the Peak District in England. FM coverage, meanwhile, runs at more than 99 per cent.
Critics also say that the quality of the reception can vary wildly and is often poorer than FM.
After 2015 there is likely to be a phase out period where FM, MW and digital offerings run alongside each other in order to ensure everyone has adjusted.
This phase out process could happen region by region, following the television model.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has said incorporating digital radios into new models by 2015 would ‘be a challenge, but achievable’ but that still leaves tens of millions of older cars requiring conversion.
Earlier this year the communications committee published a report urging caution on radio switchover.
It said: ‘We recommend that the Government, in collaboration with the manufacturers, should provide guidance to the public on in-car digital listening, including advice on conversion kits available and likely to be available within the timeframe of digital switchover.’
Mr Hunt is expected to reveal his definitive time line and plans for digital radio tomorrow.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292531/Motorists-face-300-digital-radio-ministers-press-ahead-FM-switch-off.html#ixzz0t2wq9Jha

Glass
8th July 2010, 12:19 AM
CD's MP3's, who needs radio, ads or even the opinion of every moron out there who was taught how to string a sentence together and punch buttons on the telling bone (phone).

Mouse
8th July 2010, 01:13 AM
The question is, what is to be gained by all of this digitalization of EVERYTHING? We have in U.S. been tricked into digital television, apparently the same in U.K. and who knows how much of the rest of the world. Now they want radio. Who is to gain and why?

1. It's simply a demand mechanism to obsolete an older tech and force purchase of new gadgets
2. It's something much more nefarious

Place your vote on which it is. They have no problem creating demand for new teevees with HD and new stereo equipment in cars and homes with the latest ipod connections and vidiot console hookups and all the whistles. Why would they want you to have no analog communications whatsoever in your entire household and make it a LAW and whitewash it to look like progress?

What's in the digital signal that they want you to ingest?

Things that make you think haarp or otherwise.

Grand Master Melon
8th July 2010, 01:54 AM
Ridiculous, hell, I still listen to AM radio.

Think of the racket this is for the big electronics sellers and manufacturers and think of how much stuff will be tossed in the trash.

Sad and pathetic.

Mouse
8th July 2010, 02:15 AM
Ridiculous, hell, I still listen to AM radio.

Think of the racket this is for the big electronics sellers and manufacturers and think of how much stuff will be tossed in the trash.

Sad and pathetic.


so you vote 1?

I wish I cared enough to make a poll.

Grand Master Melon
8th July 2010, 02:25 AM
Ridiculous, hell, I still listen to AM radio.

Think of the racket this is for the big electronics sellers and manufacturers and think of how much stuff will be tossed in the trash.

Sad and pathetic.


so you vote 1?

I wish I cared enough to make a poll.


I can't say one way or the other but it sure does smell rotten.

Andy9999
8th July 2010, 06:07 AM
The question is, what is to be gained by all of this digitalization of EVERYTHING? We have in U.S. been tricked into digital television, apparently the same in U.K. and who knows how much of the rest of the world. Now they want radio. Who is to gain and why?



Things that make you think haarp or otherwise.




They created more spectrum for sale ,digital "waves can be more compressed compared to analog"
more revenue from sale ....and who know what alse??

http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/Tutorials/AnalogVsDigital.1.051501.asp

You'll get more, too. The nature of digital technology allows it to cram lots of those 1s and 0s together into the same space an analog signal uses. Like your button-rich phone at work or your 200-plus digital cable service, that means more features can be crammed into the digital signal.

vacuum
8th July 2010, 09:10 AM
The question is, what is to be gained by all of this digitalization of EVERYTHING? We have in U.S. been tricked into digital television, apparently the same in U.K. and who knows how much of the rest of the world. Now they want radio. Who is to gain and why?

1. It's simply a demand mechanism to obsolete an older tech and force purchase of new gadgets
2. It's something much more nefarious

Place your vote on which it is. They have no problem creating demand for new teevees with HD and new stereo equipment in cars and homes with the latest ipod connections and vidiot console hookups and all the whistles. Why would they want you to have no analog communications whatsoever in your entire household and make it a LAW and whitewash it to look like progress?

What's in the digital signal that they want you to ingest?

Things that make you think haarp or otherwise.

It actually makes a lot of sense to digitize TV. First of all, a TV is a relatively expensive piece of equipment and most people only have one or two. The cost of making the signal digital does add to the tv, but not very much. Radios on the other hand are much more common, and there may be a radio in every car and in most rooms of a house. The cost of a radio is very little, so the digital radio will be multiple times the price of an analog radio.

Most TV consumption was already digital, with cable and satellite. The tv's didn't need to be replaced but usually just a small box needed to be used. The broadcast stations were somewhat archaic (UHF and VHF) and were taking up extremely valuable bandwidth. TV takes up more bandwidth than radio.

Most radio consumption is analog however. There are so many radios that can't be converted. The FM band isn't that big. This doesn't make any sense.

Twisted Titan
8th July 2010, 09:53 AM
Despite serious concerns that the public neither wants nor is ready for the change, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is expected to announce he will stick with Labour’s plans for a mass switchover


WHAT TYPE OF "CULTURE" ARE THEY TRYING TO BRING ABOUT????

Awoke
8th July 2010, 11:05 AM
You dare question the motivation (http://americanbadass607.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/forcing-the-new-dawn-in-brainwashing-dtv/) behind the immediate shift to HDTV???

http://www.legaljuice.com/judge.jpg

Ash_Williams
8th July 2010, 11:22 AM
You dare question the motivation behind the immediate shift to HDTV???

The link mentions RFID but that doesn't really make sense since the bandwidths used for TV and radio right now aren't really appropriate for small RFID devices. The reason your radio antenna is the size that it is is so that it works with the FM frequencies. If you were to make your radio antenna 1/32 of an inch long, it would no longer work. The tiny RFID chips use much higher frequencies (therefore lower bandwidth and shorter antennas) for this reason.

Carbon
8th July 2010, 11:33 AM
There's a lot of explanation in the comments section of the article - I included two:

(Also - I met with our company's Verizon rep last week - he confirmed that Verizon has bought up vast chunks of UHF band recently to be used for wireless broadband. Seemingly, this will allow for live, real-time F2F video/chat via hand-held wireless devices.)



President Obama endorses FCC plan for spectrum grab from TV Broadcasters (http://www.dtvusaforum.com/content/181-president-obama-endorses-fcc-plan-spectrum-grab-tv-broadcasters.html)
by Jay
Published on 06-28-2010 02:02 PM
20 Comments

President Barack ObamaPresident Barack Obama released a memorandum today directing the federal government to almost double the amount of spectrum space for wireless internet devices.

Mr. Obama stated, "The Internet, as vital infrastructure, has become central to the daily economic life of almost every American by creating unprecedented opportunities for small businesses and individual entrepreneurs. We are now beginning the next transformation in information technology: the wireless broadband
revolution."

Last March, the Federal Communications Commission proposed a spectrum reallocation plan to reclaim up to 500 megahertz of airwaves from television broadcasters and auction off to wireless and broadband providers. The FCC would share earnings with broadcasters who choose to participate in the spectrum reallocation plan. Mr Obama's memorandum today was seen as an endorsement of the FCC spectrum reallocation plan.

Broadcasters have been publicly decrying the FCC plan; in April, the National Association of Broadcaster's (NAB) president Gordon Smith made the following statements in a keynote speech at NAB's trade show in Las Vegas.,

"How voluntary is it when the plan says, and I quote: ‘The government's ability to reclaim, clear and re-auction spectrum is the ultimate backstop against market failure and is an appropriate tool when a voluntary process stalls entirely.'

further adding,

"This sounds as voluntary as Marlon Brando saying in the Godfather that he wanted either the guy's signature or his brains on a contract."

NAB delivers letter to FCC coinciding with Obama's memorandum

In a letter delivered to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, NAB urged the FCC to protect over-the-air broadcasts, “We also fervently support the principle that any spectrum reclamation must not force a reduction in the number or quality of services potentially offered by broadcasters or a reduction in number of television homes served by broadcasters.” Read more about NAB's letter to the FCC here.


Comments 20 Comments

1. BCF68's Avatar
BCF68 - 06-28-2010

Say good bye to OTA in 10 years. I thought Obama was smart. We all know that this spectrum is going to be bought up by At&t and Verizon. Anyone here confident that the 2 companies are going to provide broadband to all those millions that can't get it now? This IS the whole point of this wonderful plan. Considering the current data plans for PC these companies offer have 5 GB monthly caps and $51.20 per GB overage charges, anyone here confident that these millions of people are going to get REAL broadband? Is the FCC going to make sure these people get decent speeds and no caps? Doubtful.

If the FCC is going to take everything above channel 30 then they need to move land mobile off ch 14-20. They also need to allow and make broadcasters use higher power for low and hi-VHF since it's obvious some will have to move back to these frequencies.

1. Piggie's Avatar
Piggie - 06-28-2010

This is yet another perfect example of who owns American politics and laws. You can argue left, right, liberal, conservative all day long and guess what? It doesn't make a hill of beans regardless of who is elected.

They are beholden to one thing and one thing only, and it's not the voters. ATT and Verizon (virtually the same company stock holder wise) will benefit, not the consumer.

They cell phone companies aka wireless data carriers already have 602 MHz of spectrum. If they take every UHF channel they get 222 MHz, not being allowed 37, unless radio astronomy bites the dust also. If the take hi-band that is another 42 MHz. Low band another 30 MHz. That adds up to 294 MHz of space TV now uses.

They won't) use low band channels for data as it skips too easy. It is also very doubtful they want hi band due to antenna size. So that leaves them 222 MHz if they take every last TV channel save 37 for radio astronomy.

That means they can only increase by 37% over what they have now. If they claim they are running out of space already, which they actually have on the 800 and 1900 MHz cell bands in urban areas, it won't be long until the new 700 MHz channels are full. Then they have just 222 MHz left and that will gone in no time. At the current rate of growth of wireless growth, this just means they will be totally out of space in 5 to 10 years including taking UHF television.

Then what? They can grab the 450 ham band and the mobile land services near there but total that will only add another 40 MHz. And it will force every ambulance and police car to move to new 600 MHz public safety bands. Has anyone even considered if they will fit there. The cost of putting multiple 600 MHz towers in rural counties that are currently served by a single 460 MHz tower? Propagation and tree absorption change rapidly as you get above 300 MHz in the UHF spectrum as many here noted on reception.

Then what? They will either have to improve compression techniques or go higher in frequency. If they get the UHF channels remaining that gives them 31% of the UHF spectrum.

At it's peak, UHF TV only had 414 MHz of spectrum, or about 2/3 of what the cell phones already have.

I don't believe they will make that big of strides in compression techniques, but it's always possible. They will need to start grabbing spectrum higher in frequency. Or more likely raise the price and limit the usability of wireless data.

Two points are obvious. One is this is nothing more than a resource grab by corporations with the politician doing their bidding. Two, whomever though they could actually build out and serve rural areas with the limited amount of wireless spectrum was either ignorant or new they would be taking the frequencies from TV. This is pretty obvious in how fast (about 2 months) after analog shut off the wireless industry (ah well ATT and Verizon) wanted the rest of the channels. I am sure their engineers told them there wasn't nearly enough spectrum to ever satisfy rural broadband. Well lets see, looks like both of my two points lead back to the same conclusion, corporate control of the US Govt, lock, stock and barrel...

Horn
8th July 2010, 11:47 AM
They don't want any interference from the old analog, as they pump the digital directly into the cerebrum's of specters everywhere..

JDRock
8th July 2010, 12:42 PM
The question is, what is to be gained by all of this digitalization of EVERYTHING? We have in U.S. been tricked into digital television, apparently the same in U.K. and who knows how much of the rest of the world. Now they want radio. Who is to gain and why?

1. It's simply a demand mechanism to obsolete an older tech and force purchase of new gadgets
2. It's something much more nefarious

Place your vote on which it is.


i vote # 2 ....NOTHING good can come of reducing the CHOICES of a ( supposedly) free people.