«

In article <4ebd8516$>, Robert Cooze
<c_o-o_z-e_r-b_@-c-o-o-z-eD_O_Tc_oD_O_Tnz> wrote:
> On 11/11/11 18:29, Crash McBash wrote:
> > My wife currently has a clamshell phone that is ideal and meets her
> > needs exactly - and is linked to our landline through onebill. Telecom
> > have, however, decided to correct this problem by switching off their
> > CDMA network ;-(
> >
> > The cheapest upgrade from Telecom is a $29 phone but this is not a
> > clamshell. Their cheapest clamshell is $150. Basically she wants a
> > clamshell-style phone (because the closed cover protects the keyboard)
> > that can handle voice calls and txt. No other features are required.
> >
> > I have a near-identical phone - the Samsung 1310B but this is not XT
> > compatible.
> >
> > Using Google gives the usual array of either too-expensive or not
> > suitable phones.
> >
> > I am thinking of taking the $29 phone in order to get a SIM with the
> > same number, swap the SIM to a suitable clamshell phone. This way we
> > retain the number and the onebill feature using the hardware of her
> > choice. Note that I have considered buying something like the E1310B
> > with a Vodafone or 2o SIM and porting the Telecom number to it but we
> > loose the onebill feature doing this.
> >
> > So - any suggestions on a suitable phone? TIA...
>
> Ok there is 2 things that come to mind
>
> 1) Telecom announced the switch off of the CDMA network over two years
> ago so why haven't you sorted out a replacement

Telecom have only last week started really pushing the switch off via TV
adverts with Gary McCormick and Stacey Daniels (there were one or two
adverts before, but this new one seems to be playing more often).

Many people are still happy with the phone they have and are only being
forced into changing by Telecom turning off the "old" system (one that
they promoted as the best thing since sliced bread when it was launced
despite many countries, and even Vodafone NZ, already deciding the
technology wasn't any good - no doubt it was cheaper, and the dollars
would have been the only thing Telecom bothered looking at).

There are similarities with TV. The government's silly "digital
changeover" is largely unnecessary since most people are happy without the
over-priced "Free"view, and TV networks are always over-hyping shows that
are already canceled overseas. :-\

On 11/12/2011 9:58 AM, Your Name wrote:
> Telecom have only last week started really pushing the switch off via TV
> adverts with Gary McCormick and Stacey Daniels (there were one or two
> adverts before, but this new one seems to be playing more often).

Havent seen any ads about it, but have got many texts on the old
dinosaur phone about it

> Many people are still happy with the phone they have and are only being
> forced into changing by Telecom turning off the "old" system (one that
> they promoted as the best thing since sliced bread when it was launced
> despite many countries, and even Vodafone NZ, already deciding the
> technology wasn't any good - no doubt it was cheaper, and the dollars
> would have been the only thing Telecom bothered looking at).

CDMA was basically forced on them by the govt at the time not allowing
telecom to have any 900MHz spectrum, there was only CDMA hardware
available for 800MHz then, not till the US pulled finger and got GSM and
then UMTS on 850MHz was there any other option for telecom to run.

> There are similarities with TV. The government's silly "digital
> changeover" is largely unnecessary since most people are happy without the
> over-priced "Free"view, and TV networks are always over-hyping shows that
> are already canceled overseas. :-\

Overpriced? Its FREE. hence the name.

Closer to switch off I expect that winz will be throwing money at
upgrades for poor people. Otherwise you have 18 months+ for most people
to worry about saving to pay for a cheap receiver to get a better pic in
most cases and content that hasnt had the sides chopped off it. I would
much rather the spectrum gets used for more data services than being
wasted on an inefficiant obsolete broadcasting service, exactly the same
reasons that telecom want people off CDMA, since UMTS does so much more
with the same resources.

In article <j9ku7f$nlf$>, Richard <> wrote:

> On 11/12/2011 9:58 AM, Your Name wrote:
> > Telecom have only last week started really pushing the switch off via TV
> > adverts with Gary McCormick and Stacey Daniels (there were one or two
> > adverts before, but this new one seems to be playing more often).
>
> Havent seen any ads about it, but have got many texts on the old
> dinosaur phone about it
>
> > Many people are still happy with the phone they have and are only being
> > forced into changing by Telecom turning off the "old" system (one that
> > they promoted as the best thing since sliced bread when it was launced
> > despite many countries, and even Vodafone NZ, already deciding the
> > technology wasn't any good - no doubt it was cheaper, and the dollars
> > would have been the only thing Telecom bothered looking at).
>
> CDMA was basically forced on them by the govt at the time not allowing
> telecom to have any 900MHz spectrum, there was only CDMA hardware
> available for 800MHz then, not till the US pulled finger and got GSM and
> then UMTS on 850MHz was there any other option for telecom to run.

Then how did Vodafone get to use the better technology?? Maybe they
arrived later, I haven't bothered figuring out the timelines involved. I
wouldn't be surprised if it was greedy Government selling off frequencies
to Vodafone on an exclusive basis, for more money of course.



> > There are similarities with TV. The government's silly "digital
> > changeover" is largely unnecessary since most people are happy without the
> > over-priced "Free"view, and TV networks are always over-hyping shows that
> > are already canceled overseas. :-\
>
> Overpriced? Its FREE. hence the name.

The broadcasting is free (unlike watching Sky channels), but the equipment
to actually watch the broadcasts is not free.

At BEST you need an extra box to plug into your old TV at around $99, but
you may also need a new antenna or satelitte dish as well.

Then, if you want to record one channel while watching another using an
old recorder, you'll need a second extra box. The other, more expensive
option is to get a new TV and / or a new recorder box.



> Closer to switch off I expect that winz will be throwing money at
> upgrades for poor people. Otherwise you have 18 months+ for most people
> to worry about saving to pay for a cheap receiver to get a better pic in
> most cases and content that hasnt had the sides chopped off it. I would
> much rather the spectrum gets used for more data services than being
> wasted on an inefficiant obsolete broadcasting service, exactly the same
> reasons that telecom want people off CDMA, since UMTS does so much more
> with the same resources.

The problem is that, depsite what the Government tries to tell you,
digital TV is not better than analogue TV ... in fact in some ways digital
TV is actually worse. The promised "extra channels" are largely worthless
and some have even already been shutdown.

Of course, the REAL reason for the changeover has little to do with
quality, extending services, etc. One of the biggest reasons is simply to
fill up Government bank balances. Not only can they sell off the old
frequencies, but they get piles of GST from all the new equipment people
are being forced to buy. You could almost see the $ signs spinning in the
idiot politician's eyes when he made the announcement. :-\

On 11/12/2011 6:25 PM, Your Name wrote:

> Then how did Vodafone get to use the better technology?? Maybe they
> arrived later, I haven't bothered figuring out the timelines involved. I
> wouldn't be surprised if it was greedy Government selling off frequencies
> to Vodafone on an exclusive basis, for more money of course.

Because back in the 90's bellsouth got the license for 900MHz to start a
second mobile network, a bad idea at the time since the analog front
ends on 800MHz phones couldnt deal with a nearby GSM phone and would get
interference. Funny that the problem went away with the change to a
digital network.

>> Overpriced? Its FREE. hence the name.
>
> The broadcasting is free (unlike watching Sky channels), but the equipment
> to actually watch the broadcasts is not free.
>
> At BEST you need an extra box to plug into your old TV at around $99, but
> you may also need a new antenna or satelitte dish as well.

Where did your TV come from? was it free? Arguing that freeview isnt
free is absurd, even dirty old AM radio, which is free has an entry cost
to get the receiver.

> Then, if you want to record one channel while watching another using an
> old recorder, you'll need a second extra box. The other, more expensive
> option is to get a new TV and / or a new recorder box.

Yes, each device you want to tune on needs a digital tuner. Just as they
already have an inbuilt analog tuner. Not the devices fault that the
service it records from is being shut down, just means that its at the
end of its useful life.

> The problem is that, depsite what the Government tries to tell you,
> digital TV is not better than analogue TV ... in fact in some ways digital
> TV is actually worse. The promised "extra channels" are largely worthless
> and some have even already been shutdown.

How is it worse? No chroma crossover distortion, no missing sides and
added black bars like analog has, I will give you that the nicam audio
was better, but now that 3 and sometimes 1 and 2 have a dolby stream
thats not a massive issue. Shame about the music channel sounding so bad
tho, but thats the only downside IMO. Ohyeah, there is no C4 on analog
now, so thats something you dont even get with analog.

Better signal, easier to receive than analog, more efficiant both in
transmission power and amount of content per MHz. Whats not to like
about retiring a format that dates back to the invention of television
transmitted on a noise prone AM carrier for something better?

> Of course, the REAL reason for the changeover has little to do with
> quality, extending services, etc. One of the biggest reasons is simply to
> fill up Government bank balances. Not only can they sell off the old
> frequencies, but they get piles of GST from all the new equipment people
> are being forced to buy. You could almost see the $ signs spinning in the
> idiot politician's eyes when he made the announcement. :-\

It has to do with getting the best result for the public out of a
limited resource. the 700MHz spectrum will allow for better in building
and rural mobile data services than the other available frequencies for
LTE. If a few whiners get ****ed off that their antique TV needs a cheap
box to keep showing pictures that is not a big deal.

I could post some pictures of noisy analog UHF vs perfect digital UHF
reception using a pair of bunnyears on the windowsill about 30km from
the transmistter but you would probably still argue that the analog
service is better for some reason.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 18:25:00 +1300, (Your Name)
wrote:

>In article <j9ku7f$nlf$>, Richard <> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2011 9:58 AM, Your Name wrote:
>> > Telecom have only last week started really pushing the switch off via TV
>> > adverts with Gary McCormick and Stacey Daniels (there were one or two
>> > adverts before, but this new one seems to be playing more often).
>>

>The problem is that, depsite what the Government tries to tell you,
>digital TV is not better than analogue TV ... in fact in some ways digital
>TV is actually worse. The promised "extra channels" are largely worthless
>and some have even already been shutdown.
>
>Of course, the REAL reason for the changeover has little to do with
>quality, extending services, etc. One of the biggest reasons is simply to
>fill up Government bank balances. Not only can they sell off the old
>frequencies, but they get piles of GST from all the new equipment people
>are being forced to buy. You could almost see the $ signs spinning in the
>idiot politician's eyes when he made the announcement. :-\



What planet do you come from as you just don't have a clue at all.


If I was you I would shut up before you make your self a Total fool..

On 12/11/2011 6:25 p.m., Your Name wrote:

>
> The problem is that, depsite what the Government tries to tell you,
> digital TV is not better than analogue TV ... in fact in some ways digital
> TV is actually worse. The promised "extra channels" are largely worthless
> and some have even already been shutdown.
>
> Of course, the REAL reason for the changeover has little to do with
> quality, extending services, etc. One of the biggest reasons is simply to
> fill up Government bank balances. Not only can they sell off the old
> frequencies, but they get piles of GST from all the new equipment people
> are being forced to buy. You could almost see the $ signs spinning in the
> idiot politician's eyes when he made the announcement. :-\

Now you are being silly.
Digital TV is higher definition and less prone to transmission path
defects that cause ghosting and noise.
Most people buy new flat screen tvs because they have a bigger display
and take up less room and take less purchasing power than the old ones
did. They get to plug in all sorts of new sources into the hdmi inputs
besides the FTA DVB-T broadcasts that the internal tuners receive.
The tv providers have no interest in transmitting analogue tv, and they
pay Kordia for the transmission.
I'm quite surprised that the asset sales proposed by the National Party
don't include Kordia.
What could be the reason for that ?
Stephen Joyces mates perhaps ?

In article <j9mr3s$ao4$>, Richard <> wrote:

> On 11/12/2011 6:25 PM, Your Name wrote:
> >>
> >> Overpriced? Its FREE. hence the name.
> >
> > The broadcasting is free (unlike watching Sky channels), but the equipment
> > to actually watch the broadcasts is not free.
> >
> > At BEST you need an extra box to plug into your old TV at around $99, but
> > you may also need a new antenna or satelitte dish as well.
>
> Where did your TV come from? was it free? Arguing that freeview isnt
> free is absurd, even dirty old AM radio, which is free has an entry cost
> to get the receiver.
>
> > Then, if you want to record one channel while watching another using an
> > old recorder, you'll need a second extra box. The other, more expensive
> > option is to get a new TV and / or a new recorder box.
>
> Yes, each device you want to tune on needs a digital tuner. Just as they
> already have an inbuilt analog tuner. Not the devices fault that the
> service it records from is being shut down, just means that its at the
> end of its useful life.

Which means it isn't actually "free" - in some form you do have to pay to
get it.


> > The problem is that, depsite what the Government tries to tell you,
> > digital TV is not better than analogue TV ... in fact in some ways digital
> > TV is actually worse. The promised "extra channels" are largely worthless
> > and some have even already been shutdown.
>
> How is it worse? No chroma crossover distortion, no missing sides and
> added black bars like analog has, I will give you that the nicam audio
> was better, but now that 3 and sometimes 1 and 2 have a dolby stream
> thats not a massive issue. Shame about the music channel sounding so bad
> tho, but thats the only downside IMO. Ohyeah, there is no C4 on analog
> now, so thats something you dont even get with analog.
>
> Better signal, easier to receive than analog, more efficiant both in
> transmission power and amount of content per MHz. Whats not to like
> about retiring a format that dates back to the invention of television
> transmitted on a noise prone AM carrier for something better?

Except of course when it rains and you lose the satelitte, the horribly
pixellated diagonal edges (e.g. staircase hand rails), you do still get
black bars on older shows / movies, etc.

Digital is not actually "better", just "different" - some ways it is
better and some ways it's worse.

CD music is not "better" than analogue, DVD quality is not "better" than
film, digital photos are not "better" than film. They're all simply
"different" and it's up to the user whether the problems of one format are
better for THEM than the problems of another.




> It has to do with getting the best result for the public out of a
> limited resource. the 700MHz spectrum will allow for better in building
> and rural mobile data services than the other available frequencies for
> LTE. If a few whiners get ****ed off that their antique TV needs a cheap
> box to keep showing pictures that is not a big deal.

$99 is not "cheap" to some people, especially when it's not neccessary,
other than a greedy Government pushing an unnecessary change for the sake
of it.



> I could post some pictures of noisy analog UHF vs perfect digital UHF
> reception using a pair of bunnyears on the windowsill about 30km from
> the transmistter but you would probably still argue that the analog
> service is better for some reason.

Yep, and I could post pictures of a crapped out digital image becuase it's
raining, or with horrible pixellated diagonal edges ... as I said digital
is not "better" in every aspect.

In article <>, Frank Williams
<> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 18:25:00 +1300, (Your Name)
> wrote:
> >In article <j9ku7f$nlf$>, Richard <> wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2011 9:58 AM, Your Name wrote:
> >> > Telecom have only last week started really pushing the switch off via TV
> >> > adverts with Gary McCormick and Stacey Daniels (there were one or two
> >> > adverts before, but this new one seems to be playing more often).
> >>
>
> >The problem is that, depsite what the Government tries to tell you,
> >digital TV is not better than analogue TV ... in fact in some ways digital
> >TV is actually worse. The promised "extra channels" are largely worthless
> >and some have even already been shutdown.
> >
> >Of course, the REAL reason for the changeover has little to do with
> >quality, extending services, etc. One of the biggest reasons is simply to
> >fill up Government bank balances. Not only can they sell off the old
> >frequencies, but they get piles of GST from all the new equipment people
> >are being forced to buy. You could almost see the $ signs spinning in the
> >idiot politician's eyes when he made the announcement. :-\
>
> What planet do you come from as you just don't have a clue at all.

There's a massive amount of money that will come out of the idiotic
digital TV changeover - the GST from sales of new TVs and external boxes,
the GST from the installation of new antennas and dishes, the income from
selling the frequnecies, etc.

If you don't believe the Government are interested in that (espeically
these days), then you're an idiot ... believe me, they wouldn't have even
bothered if the changeover had meant them losing money, not matter how
much "better" digital supposedly was.

On 11/13/2011 2:16 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article<j9mr3s$ao4$>, Richard<> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2011 6:25 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Overpriced? Its FREE. hence the name.
>>>
>>> The broadcasting is free (unlike watching Sky channels), but the equipment
>>> to actually watch the broadcasts is not free.
>>>
>>> At BEST you need an extra box to plug into your old TV at around $99, but
>>> you may also need a new antenna or satelitte dish as well.
>>
>> Where did your TV come from? was it free? Arguing that freeview isnt
>> free is absurd, even dirty old AM radio, which is free has an entry cost
>> to get the receiver.
>>
>>> Then, if you want to record one channel while watching another using an
>>> old recorder, you'll need a second extra box. The other, more expensive
>>> option is to get a new TV and / or a new recorder box.
>>
>> Yes, each device you want to tune on needs a digital tuner. Just as they
>> already have an inbuilt analog tuner. Not the devices fault that the
>> service it records from is being shut down, just means that its at the
>> end of its useful life.
>
> Which means it isn't actually "free" - in some form you do have to pay to
> get it.
>
>
>>> The problem is that, depsite what the Government tries to tell you,
>>> digital TV is not better than analogue TV ... in fact in some ways digital
>>> TV is actually worse. The promised "extra channels" are largely worthless
>>> and some have even already been shutdown.
>>
>> How is it worse? No chroma crossover distortion, no missing sides and
>> added black bars like analog has, I will give you that the nicam audio
>> was better, but now that 3 and sometimes 1 and 2 have a dolby stream
>> thats not a massive issue. Shame about the music channel sounding so bad
>> tho, but thats the only downside IMO. Ohyeah, there is no C4 on analog
>> now, so thats something you dont even get with analog.
>>
>> Better signal, easier to receive than analog, more efficiant both in
>> transmission power and amount of content per MHz. Whats not to like
>> about retiring a format that dates back to the invention of television
>> transmitted on a noise prone AM carrier for something better?
>
> Except of course when it rains and you lose the satelitte, the horribly
> pixellated diagonal edges (e.g. staircase hand rails), you do still get
> black bars on older shows / movies, etc.
>
> Digital is not actually "better", just "different" - some ways it is
> better and some ways it's worse.
>
> CD music is not "better" than analogue, DVD quality is not "better" than
> film, digital photos are not "better" than film. They're all simply
> "different" and it's up to the user whether the problems of one format are
> better for THEM than the problems of another.

A component broadcast platform will always be better than one that has
been downconverted to composite, no amount of magic in the reciever will
allow it to recreate things that the composite signal destroys like a
proper red, fine textures and green and magenta beside each other
without a giant swam of dotcrawl.

You get black bars on 4:3 content on digital, yes, because it has to
have that added to make it a 16:9 image. What the result is on analog
when that is then letterboxed out into 14:9 (for some strange reason) is
about 2" of black top and bottom, the TV's own pillarboxing bars, and
then another 2" of black that is being broadcast, so a massive reduction
in the amount of signal that is used.

>> It has to do with getting the best result for the public out of a
>> limited resource. the 700MHz spectrum will allow for better in building
>> and rural mobile data services than the other available frequencies for
>> LTE. If a few whiners get ****ed off that their antique TV needs a cheap
>> box to keep showing pictures that is not a big deal.
>
> $99 is not "cheap" to some people, especially when it's not neccessary,
> other than a greedy Government pushing an unnecessary change for the sake
> of it.

Under $1 a week if they start to save now. IMO it should be the
broadcasters forking out for poor peoples boxes not the govt, as the
viewers are their product they need to keep for their customers.

Besides, WINZ is under the mistaken belief that a TV is essential so
will lend money to buy one. Wont do that for computer equipment however
which IMO is totally backwards.

>> I could post some pictures of noisy analog UHF vs perfect digital UHF
>> reception using a pair of bunnyears on the windowsill about 30km from
>> the transmistter but you would probably still argue that the analog
>> service is better for some reason.
>
> Yep, and I could post pictures of a crapped out digital image becuase it's
> raining, or with horrible pixellated diagonal edges ... as I said digital
> is not "better" in every aspect.


If there are staircases in one and not the other its probably a problem
with your receiver, as I have only seen it on dirt cheap ones when set
to output letterboxed images for old squarescreen TVs that cant
letterbox it themselves. The downscalers used for analog broadcast are
way more advanced so will sort all that out nicely. Never seen any
issues with it on proper freeview however, since it has to upscale the
SD channels to 1080 for displaying.

If its crapping out all the time in the rain then get the dish looked
at. I have the small sky supplied dish and have probably seen about 4-5
mins of rainfade in the last year on sky, and the DVB-S2 transponders
for HD are more prone to it than the older DVB ones that freeview etc use.

There are many cowboy installers with just a strength meter around the
place so make sure that whoever you get to do it has a proper digital
error rate meter.

I would happily take the odd breakup and few mins without reception in
shocking weather instead of the horrible artifacts that a TV has to do
to get a progressive image out of the noisy crosstalky analog signal.

On 13/11/2011 2:16 p.m., Your Name wrote:
> In article<j9mr3s$ao4$>, Richard<> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2011 6:25 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Overpriced? Its FREE. hence the name.
>>>
>>> The broadcasting is free (unlike watching Sky channels), but the equipment
>>> to actually watch the broadcasts is not free.
>>>
>>> At BEST you need an extra box to plug into your old TV at around $99, but
>>> you may also need a new antenna or satelitte dish as well.
>>
>> Where did your TV come from? was it free? Arguing that freeview isnt
>> free is absurd, even dirty old AM radio, which is free has an entry cost
>> to get the receiver.
>>
>>> Then, if you want to record one channel while watching another using an
>>> old recorder, you'll need a second extra box. The other, more expensive
>>> option is to get a new TV and / or a new recorder box.
>>
>> Yes, each device you want to tune on needs a digital tuner. Just as they
>> already have an inbuilt analog tuner. Not the devices fault that the
>> service it records from is being shut down, just means that its at the
>> end of its useful life.
>
> Which means it isn't actually "free" - in some form you do have to pay to
> get it.
>
>
>>> The problem is that, depsite what the Government tries to tell you,
>>> digital TV is not better than analogue TV ... in fact in some ways digital
>>> TV is actually worse. The promised "extra channels" are largely worthless
>>> and some have even already been shutdown.
>>
>> How is it worse? No chroma crossover distortion, no missing sides and
>> added black bars like analog has, I will give you that the nicam audio
>> was better, but now that 3 and sometimes 1 and 2 have a dolby stream
>> thats not a massive issue. Shame about the music channel sounding so bad
>> tho, but thats the only downside IMO. Ohyeah, there is no C4 on analog
>> now, so thats something you dont even get with analog.
>>
>> Better signal, easier to receive than analog, more efficiant both in
>> transmission power and amount of content per MHz. Whats not to like
>> about retiring a format that dates back to the invention of television
>> transmitted on a noise prone AM carrier for something better?
>
> Except of course when it rains and you lose the satelitte, the horribly
> pixellated diagonal edges (e.g. staircase hand rails), you do still get
> black bars on older shows / movies, etc.
>
> Digital is not actually "better", just "different" - some ways it is
> better and some ways it's worse.
>
> CD music is not "better" than analogue, DVD quality is not "better" than
> film, digital photos are not "better" than film. They're all simply
> "different" and it's up to the user whether the problems of one format are
> better for THEM than the problems of another.
>
>
>
>
>> It has to do with getting the best result for the public out of a
>> limited resource. the 700MHz spectrum will allow for better in building
>> and rural mobile data services than the other available frequencies for
>> LTE. If a few whiners get ****ed off that their antique TV needs a cheap
>> box to keep showing pictures that is not a big deal.
>
> $99 is not "cheap" to some people, especially when it's not neccessary,
> other than a greedy Government pushing an unnecessary change for the sake
> of it.
>
>
>
>> I could post some pictures of noisy analog UHF vs perfect digital UHF
>> reception using a pair of bunnyears on the windowsill about 30km from
>> the transmistter but you would probably still argue that the analog
>> service is better for some reason.
>
> Yep, and I could post pictures of a crapped out digital image becuase it's
> raining, or with horrible pixellated diagonal edges ... as I said digital
> is not "better" in every aspect.

Freeview isn't the government, it is a consumer brand owned by a jointly
owned limited company set up by the broadcasters.

The terrestrial analogue is replaced by HD DVB-T, plus the SD satellite
service to give a sum total of much better service than the old
transmitters and translators with their co channel interference.
You are correct that both services are not free, neither is analogue
television, they are paid for by the broadcaster who recovers the cost
from advertising revenue, sponsorship, government grants etc.
The analogue transmission system also costs money to maintain, and is
now redundant and obsolete for the purposes of the broadcasters.
If you don't want to buy equipment to receive the free to air digital
transmission, that is your choice, the broadcasters have no obligation
to provide you with the analogue service.
PAL broadcast has joined the skip load of obsolete junk I am happy to
see the last of along with ISDN, VGA, CRTs, dot matrix printers, floppy
disks, gramophones and VCRs. Next to go is the analogue telephone.