Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie flipphone) that works on the XT network.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Your Name, Nov 11, 2011.

  1. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    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. :-\
     
    Your Name, Nov 11, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Your Name

    Richard Guest

    Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie flipphone) that works on the XTnetwork.

    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.
     
    Richard, Nov 12, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    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. :-\
     
    Your Name, Nov 12, 2011
    #3
  4. Your Name

    Richard Guest

    Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie flipphone) that works on the XTnetwork.

    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 pissed 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.
     
    Richard, Nov 12, 2011
    #4
  5. 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..
     
    Frank Williams, Nov 12, 2011
    #5
  6. Your Name

    victor Guest

    Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie flipphone) that works on the XTnetwork.

    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 ?
     
    victor, Nov 13, 2011
    #6
  7. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    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 pissed 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.
     
    Your Name, Nov 13, 2011
    #7
  8. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    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.
     
    Your Name, Nov 13, 2011
    #8
  9. Your Name

    Richard Guest

    Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie flipphone) that works on the XTnetwork.

    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 pissed 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.
     
    Richard, Nov 13, 2011
    #9
  10. Your Name

    victor Guest

    Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie flipphone) that works on the XTnetwork.

    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 pissed 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.
     
    victor, Nov 13, 2011
    #10
  11. Your Name

    Donchano Guest

    On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:52:22 +1300, victor <> shouted
    from the highest rooftop:

    >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.


    Had it not been for the one analogue telephone we still have we would
    have been completely incommunicado during one of the July storms that
    cut off our power for nearly four days. We were flooded in, so we
    couldn't drive anywhere. No cellphone coverage except for texting due
    to wind damage to several transmission towers, no power. Just our
    battery powered radio, gas stove, woodburner, candles, Coleman lantern
    and ... our analogue phone. I'll hate to see it go.
     
    Donchano, Nov 13, 2011
    #11
  12. Your Name

    victor Guest

    Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie flipphone) that works on the XTnetwork.

    On 13/11/2011 2:19 p.m., Your Name wrote:

    >
    > 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.


    It would have happened anyway, the broadcasters can't buy old SD 4:3
    equipment any longer.

    The RF spectrum is a state asset leased out for fixed periods to the
    stakeholders on behalf of you the taxpayer, and it is up to the
    government departments concerned to maintain it and manage it in as well
    organized and marketable condition as possible.
    This may conflict with your preference for your old POSPALCRTTV (TM)
    People have bought new DVB-T TVs regardless of the analogue
    transmissions still being available, indeed the disposal of the volume
    of CRT waste is a bit of a problem.
     
    victor, Nov 13, 2011
    #12
  13. Your Name

    victor Guest

    Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie flipphone) that works on the XTnetwork.

    On 13/11/2011 3:09 p.m., Donchano wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:52:22 +1300, victor<> shouted
    > from the highest rooftop:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Had it not been for the one analogue telephone we still have we would
    > have been completely incommunicado during one of the July storms that
    > cut off our power for nearly four days. We were flooded in, so we
    > couldn't drive anywhere. No cellphone coverage except for texting due
    > to wind damage to several transmission towers, no power. Just our
    > battery powered radio, gas stove, woodburner, candles, Coleman lantern
    > and ... our analogue phone. I'll hate to see it go.
    >


    You rural types will probably be on copper for longer than the rest.
    But once there is a fiber infrastructure the copper one becomes obsolete
    Its a bit of an illusion if it only goes to a cabinet which needs to be
    powered anyway.
     
    victor, Nov 13, 2011
    #13
  14. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    In article <j9n7sn$60v$>, victor <> wrote:
    >
    > Freeview isn't the government, it is a consumer brand owned by a jointly
    > owned limited company set up by the broadcasters.


    I never said Freeview was Government owned or run Freeview ... I simply
    said they are making piles of money out of forcing the changeover.

    Weirdly, the Government is also forcing the "better broadband", but not
    killing off dial-up connections ... yet!



    > 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.


    "Better" is an opinion - I don't deal in opinions, just facts. The fact is
    that, like anything else, digital TV has it's own problems and the point
    was that it isn't actually "free" since people MUST buy new equipment to
    view it.



    > 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.


    "Obsolete junk" is again a matter of opinion, and obselesence is almost
    always forced by "big business" trying to make more money and pulbic greed
    for new "toys", rather than any actual need for the new product.

    As for your list:

    - Many people working in graphic design still prefer CRT displays
    for better colour accuracy.

    - Dot matrix printers (last time I looked) were still being made
    and sold because they are used on carboned forms that require
    actual impact to transfer the information to other forms and
    such forms are still used in some industries.

    - I haven't checked recently, but 3.5" floppy disks were still
    being sold in PaperPlus and Warehouse Stationery. Personally
    I've got a large pile of floppy disks for Mac and Amiga, and
    despite some people's claims of them not being reliable, I've
    only ever had a few dozen that have been "bad" in the decades
    of using them.

    - Not gramophones as such, but many music fans still prefer
    vinyl and some bands still produce vinyal versions of their
    albums.

    - VCRs (in a combo box with a DVD player) were recently still
    being advertised by the likes of Farmers - although actually
    finding one in a store is near impossible.

    - Analogue phones may disappear, but wired phones shouldn't.
    If there's a powercut you're wireless phone becomes useless,
    whereas a normal wired phone will still work (assuming the
    powercut isn't also causing issues at the exchange of course).
     
    Your Name, Nov 13, 2011
    #14
  15. Your Name

    Donchano Guest

    On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:22:34 +1300, victor <> shouted
    from the highest rooftop:

    >On 13/11/2011 3:09 p.m., Donchano wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:52:22 +1300, victor<> shouted
    >> from the highest rooftop:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> Had it not been for the one analogue telephone we still have we would
    >> have been completely incommunicado during one of the July storms that
    >> cut off our power for nearly four days. We were flooded in, so we
    >> couldn't drive anywhere. No cellphone coverage except for texting due
    >> to wind damage to several transmission towers, no power. Just our
    >> battery powered radio, gas stove, woodburner, candles, Coleman lantern
    >> and ... our analogue phone. I'll hate to see it go.
    >>

    >
    >You rural types will probably be on copper for longer than the rest.
    >But once there is a fiber infrastructure the copper one becomes obsolete
    >Its a bit of an illusion if it only goes to a cabinet which needs to be
    >powered anyway.


    I'm not sure if your argument holds water. The entire coast was
    without power. But our analogue phones worked perfectly.
     
    Donchano, Nov 13, 2011
    #15
  16. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    In article <j9nc78$ete$>, victor <> wrote:

    > On 13/11/2011 2:19 p.m., Your Name wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > 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.

    >
    > It would have happened anyway, the broadcasters can't buy old SD 4:3
    > equipment any longer.


    Of course they can ... they simply want the new "toy" like everyone else.

    There are other countries that still use the older broadcast systems.



    > People have bought new DVB-T TVs regardless of the analogue
    > transmissions still being available, indeed the disposal of the volume
    > of CRT waste is a bit of a problem.


    That's simply another problem caused by the enforced push to upgrade.
     
    Your Name, Nov 13, 2011
    #16
  17. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    In article <j9nd5r$gjd$>, victor <> wrote:
    > On 13/11/2011 3:09 p.m., Donchano wrote:
    > >
    > > On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:52:22 +1300, victor<> shouted
    > > from the highest rooftop:
    > >
    > >> 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.

    > >
    > > Had it not been for the one analogue telephone we still have we would
    > > have been completely incommunicado during one of the July storms that
    > > cut off our power for nearly four days. We were flooded in, so we
    > > couldn't drive anywhere. No cellphone coverage except for texting due
    > > to wind damage to several transmission towers, no power. Just our
    > > battery powered radio, gas stove, woodburner, candles, Coleman lantern
    > > and ... our analogue phone. I'll hate to see it go.
    > >

    >
    > You rural types will probably be on copper for longer than the rest.
    > But once there is a fiber infrastructure the copper one becomes obsolete
    > Its a bit of an illusion if it only goes to a cabinet which needs to be
    > powered anyway.


    Fibre is only going to the exchange / street side cabinet. It's not going
    to the house (that's staying as copper wiring, unless you want to pay for
    that to be changed yourself).
     
    Your Name, Nov 13, 2011
    #17
  18. On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:52:22 +1300, victor <> wrote:

    >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 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.




    The chap is a nutter so Please dont feed the Trol.
     
    Frank Williams, Nov 14, 2011
    #18
  19. On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:12:57 +1300, (Your Name)
    wrote:

    >In article <j9n7sn$60v$>, victor <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Freeview isn't the government, it is a consumer brand owned by a jointly
    >> owned limited company set up by the broadcasters.

    >
    >I never said Freeview was Government owned or run Freeview ... I simply
    >said they are making piles of money out of forcing the changeover.
    >
    >Weirdly, the Government is also forcing the "better broadband", but not
    >killing off dial-up connections ... yet!
    >
    >
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >"Better" is an opinion - I don't deal in opinions, just facts. The fact is
    >that, like anything else, digital TV has it's own problems and the point
    >was that it isn't actually "free" since people MUST buy new equipment to
    >view it.
    >
    >
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >"Obsolete junk" is again a matter of opinion, and obselesence is almost
    >always forced by "big business" trying to make more money and pulbic greed
    >for new "toys", rather than any actual need for the new product.
    >




    You are So full of CRAP, you have to buy a TV any way to watch it in the
    First Place, the set top box is only a one off $90 payment, so why are
    you distorting what is referred to as Free, did you get yout TV for
    free..?
     
    Frank Williams, Nov 14, 2011
    #19
  20. On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:15:40 +1300, (Your Name)
    wrote:

    >In article <j9nc78$ete$>, victor <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 13/11/2011 2:19 p.m., Your Name wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > 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.

    >>
    >> It would have happened anyway, the broadcasters can't buy old SD 4:3
    >> equipment any longer.

    >
    >Of course they can ... they simply want the new "toy" like everyone else.
    >
    >There are other countries that still use the older broadcast systems.
    >



    NAME THEM..???
     
    Frank Williams, Nov 14, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Evert
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    647
    Debbie Croft
    Jan 11, 2007
  2. Frank Williams
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    708
    Frank Williams
    Nov 11, 2011
  3. Donchano
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    715
    Donchano
    Nov 11, 2011
  4. Richard
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    774
    Richard
    Nov 12, 2011
  5. Donchano
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    990
    Your Name
    Nov 15, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page