Digital TV - the bits they don't tell you

We are currently being rushed headlong into a new age of digital TV. After years of black and white 405 line VHF TV, followed another long period of 625 line colour UHF TV we are in the middle of the changeover to digital, with High Definition hot on its heels. I have no problem with digital TV, especially as I am in a technology industry and have a background in electronics. In principle it's a good idea, but the way it is being 'sold' to the public is very one-sided.

Initially Richard Wilson told us that it will be free from interference - well Richard, 'I don't believe it!'. Watch a digital terrestrial channel for a while and see - and hear - what happens. An analogue signal with interference will cause a buzz or crackle on the sound and a flash of visual disturbance usually in a thin horizontal strip across the picture, but in most cases doesn't stop you seeing or hearing the programme. What happens with digital? The picture degrades into blocks, freezes and skips. The sound channels click loudly in a manner that is likely to cause damage to your speakers over a sustained period of time. Cable is less prone to this type of interference, and I can't vouch for satellite as I don't subscribe to the Murdoch coffers. I do remember the analogue satellite systems being affected by rain though - white speckles all over the picture!

Another problem that you may notice with cable is that there is a delay, due to the processing that has to go on to convert the signal for transmission and then back again in your STB - switch from an analogue channel straight to the same channel on digital and hear the last few seconds again! They may not be true of satellite, although I think it will be, and it also happens of Freeview. So when you see New Year in on digital, you are almost certainly a few seconds behind everyone on analogue. It is also possible to have unsynchronised sound and picture due to delays in processing causing the lips to move at a different time to the words coming out - I have experienced this several times on cable.

Picture quality is also an area of concern. To fit in all the extra channels the signals are compressed and multiplexed together before transmission, to be converted back at the set-top box (STB). This compression is done in the same way as MP3 encoding or JPEG compression - the image is degraded into stepped bands of colour instead of being a smooth transition from one area to another - the loss of detail allows the picture to be compressed better to take up less bandwidth. The effect shows up well in dark areas that have bright lights shining out of them, like football floodlights or stage lighting at concerts, etc. Faces sometimes show digital artifacts as well - sometimes you see lips or eyes appear to move as if they are floating within the face, not attached to it. Expensive large screen plasma TVs show these symptoms up much more. So although the image looks better - especially if you connect the components together with RGB SCART connections, it's no longer what I would call 'broadcast quality'. I can only hope it improves once the analogue transmitters are turned off and the bandwidth is freed up. It needs to be sorted out by the time we get High Definition whatever happens.

We also have to take out subscriptions or at the very least extra STBs for all of the places around the house where we want to view or record TV. If you want to watch BBC1 in the lounge whilst taping one of the Discovery channels and the kids are watching MTV and Disney in their bedrooms the extra cost adds up - that's four boxes/subscriptions. To do this with a current analogue system costs no extra (although the choice of channels is more limited, obviously). So all of a sudden we have to fork out a lot more to do what we can do for just the cost of the TV license now.

Talking of channels - when are we going to sold the channels we want, not a package? Whilst I like to watch VH1 & 2, MTV, Kerrang and Magic, I'll never watch hip-hop or dance channels, so why should I have to have them included. I would much prefer to pay per view of any channel that isn't one of the base pack 'free to air' channels. Anything over 5 minutes watching a channel and you start to pay per minute. It would cut my costs significantly as 90% of my viewing is on one of the many BBC channels. After all, I can only be watching one channel at any time, so why do I need to pay for the ones that I'm not currently watching - and how about the bulk of the time when the TV is switched off?

I also wish that we weren't sold a package as containing X number of channels, when many of them are in-house sales and support channels, shopping channels, rip-off premium rate call 'competition' channels and 'plus 1' channels. None of these should count towards the number of channels. I'd also be inclined to remove those channels that continually repeat the same programming - many show the same programmes two or three times a day, and then repeat again a few weeks later. Having all of these channels is pretty pointless most of the time - yes, we have a greater 'choice' of what to watch, but if only there was stuff on all of these channels that was worth watching more of the time. I reckon that 99% of my viewing is actually spent on less than 10 channels anyway! Just how many forensic science, home makeover or history of WW2 (and how the Americans won it) can you really watch?

Whose idea was it to show programme trailers during the advert breaks within other programmes? The advert breaks are intrusive enough on their own and far too long in many cases. They break the flow of what you are watching, although they can be a useful toilet break. Having clips from another programme within the one you are watching is worse still. They are even more disruptive.

Whilst on the subject of adverts, when are we going to get a set sound level throughout? You watch a drama and turn up the sound to hear the conversation at a comfortable level, only to have an advert break where the levels are many dBs higher, waking up the rest of the house. The same goes for background music - the BBC's Spooks is one specific example of this. I have no problem with dramatic or atmospheric music or clips of good backing music in a programme - but why must it involve such a large change in volume level? If there's one benefit I'd like to see from digital TV it would be the ability to set peak levels for sound in adverts, backing music and speech independently of each other - that way the people who don't like drum beats during the news, or backing music to nature programmes can set in to 0, or at least a comfortable level - and my wife wouldn't keep telling me to turn the TV down all the time - I have to keep adjusting the volume up and down all the time to get to hear the programme properly without upsetting her!

Ideally the best way to watch any commercial channel is by recording it and fast forwarding through the breaks, but the lack of flagging of the break start and end is making that more hit and miss now - and it's done intentionally to make it more difficult to do just that. The excellent ER on E4 currently is a good example of most of these problems - excessive adverting with trailers, loud advert breaks and those bloody pointless 118 sponsorship adverts and no warning as you switch in and out of the breaks - one minute there's blood and guts then the scene cuts to a pair of morons crawling across the floor that do not make me want to find out someone's phone number at all. It does have a good level for background music though - far better than a lot of programming.

Music Download Services

I used to be a Napster member until earlier this year. After problems getting my purchased tracks to work after an update to Windoze Mee-ja Player and disliking the rip-off high prices for tracks here in the UK along with the subscription tie-in to have access to these tracks I decided to give it up. I only mention Napster here because that's the one that I've used, but I'm pretty sure that most of this applies to other download services.

Now, if I want an album I buy the CD online through CD-WOW or Play.com. That way I can experience the music the way I always used to - I can play it in the car, in any HiFi anywhere in the world and whilst out walking on a personal player, either as a CD or ripped to MP3 files. I get the sleeve notes, photos, and lyrics (where provided). I also have the satisfaction of a tangible object I can hold in my hand which by its existence is proof that I own the CD. If my mate wants to hear it I can lend it to him. I get the full quality of the original recording, not compressed with detail removed unless I choose to rip it myself - in which case I can make my own choice of format and compression against file size. I'm not limited to the brand or model of HiFi I use to play it on. The only issue that can happen is where copy-protection attempts to stop me listening to the CD on a computer - in which case it is not a Compact Disc Digital Audio format and will be returned for a full refund. If that fails it's time to contact Trading Standards.

Contrast this with music download services. The music is only available compressed - convenient for downloading maybe. Those people who download music to their phones - why? - are being ripped off even more, as the compression is so great to reduce the file size that the quality suffers even more. You get no tangible product for your money, no band photos, sleeve notes or lyrics. No details of the recording and production personnel, the locations, the other musicians, the songwriters - the list goes on. I'm tied to which computer(s) I can listen to it on and have to buy the right portable players that support the WMF format. I can't use the online services without using Windoze, IE(ugh!) and its awful Mee-ja Player. My fully capable and far more secure Firefox browser and choice of music software don't get a look-in. I can't use a non-Windoze computer - why should I pay Bill Gates just so I can access a music download service? If my computer has to be replaced or reinstalled - not unusual with Windoze - I have to apply for permission to get access to the music I have purchased.

I rarely buy anything other than full albums - I only have two CD singles in my collection. I have found on many occasions that the cost of downloading an album can be more than having the CD delivered to my door. The cost of a track bears no relationship to the playing time, so small 20 second linking tracks on an album like Tommy, the rock opera by The Who, cost as much as the 3 minute tracks, and add to the total track count and therefore the cost. On Napster some artists are not available at all, some are only partly available, and worse still, not all tracks on some albums are available! I would have purchased Quadrophenia, another rock opera by The Who, last year but gave up when I realised that many of the tracks on the full album were not available for download. Again it was cheaper - and more complete - to buy the CD online than to download.

I can see that buying individual tracks might appeal to kids with a limited budget, but what is the sense in artists producing an album of tracks if no-one gets to listen to them and hear their other styles and ideas - sometimes the other album tracks are better than or at least as good as the singles. I have to admit that in my collection 13 by Blur is the exception to the rule - the singles are excellent, the rest stinks! But over time I will listen to these tracks again and I will find that there's more on there that I like, but without the full album I would never have the chance to know.

Just because I rip the tracks from my CD collection does not mean that I am a pirate - I don't sell, give away or otherwise distribute the tracks. I object to being treated like a criminal by copy-protection systems that break the CD-DA format, limit my use of the music I chose to buy and have been known to adversely affect the security or stability of the computers they are used on (e.g. Sony's recent problems).

Just what is democracy?

We're constantly having democracy pushed down our throats as the prime reason for the supremacy of 'Western Civilisation'. It's so good we have to 'export' it, by force if necessary - a real contradiction in terms - yet when the voters in another country make their choice we condemn the outcome.

The idea of democracy is great, but does it really work? We think we can choose our government and make our voices heard, but unless you live in a marginal seat your vote doesn't count at all. The candidates who come canvassing for your vote aren't interested in your opinions, they are only interested in getting elected along with enough of their party to drive through their agenda. We can't pick and choose which bits we like and don't like - we have to take the whole package, so the choice of who to vote for comes down to balancing out who is offering the best combination of policies that you agree with against the policies that you don't support. Your role in government starts and ends with voting for the candidate who you think represents the party who will do the least damage to the country. Many people in this country don't even go that far. There are so many who will blindly vote Labour 'because I always have and so did my parents and my grandparents before them and to vote any other way would be betraying my heritage and principles...' - even though the Labour Party of today is nothing like the party of the 1940's and 50's and more Tory than the Tory Party.

Party politics mean that your MP isn't interested in what the voters really want - they have to tow the party line. There are so few MPs with the integrity to stand up for their constituents and really put their interests before party loyalty. In a true democracy voters should have the chance to vote on all bills put before Parliament. In a true democracy the government should be made up by a proportion of each party in the proportion of the votes they got and not just the party winning the most seats.

We currently have a total fiasco going on in Westminster - one revelation after another, so many that they are coming in bunches now. It's been a catalogue of disasters, incompetence, lies, spin, mis-management, cover-ups and outright hypocrisy. It's not just recently either - it's been going on from the early days back in 1997 - the Formula One loan, Peter Mandelson, Iraq dossier, Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett, the Hutton enquiry, loans for peerages, (mis)use of the Queens Flight, alleged Italian bribes, David Blunkett, WMD, there's so many I can't remember them all.

Almost everything that they accused the Torys of is happening in this government along with a whole lot of new stuff. It seems that the longer a party is in power the worse they become. With the recent anniversary of the Profumo scandal in the 60's it really shows the difference between then and now. Profumo resigned for lying to Parliament. He didn't come back a few months later as a 'Golden Boy'. He actually did something for the good of others by working for a charity to recompense for what he had done. Contrast that with Charles Clarke, Tessa Jowell, Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett, Tony Blair and heaven knows who else and how they just wriggle out of responsibility and even make money out of resigning before bouncing back again!

In a true democracy we the public would have the right not only to vote a party in, but also to vote it out in situations like this. We shouldn't have to wait for the Prime Minister and his advisors to choose the best date that suits them for an election - we should have the power to say 'enough is enough - you're not fit to run this country - it's time to go'. For those terms that run their course the election date should be predetermined - four years exactly. No more waiting to get the best popularity ratings before deciding when to call an election - just a statutory end of term date. It is one area where I think that the USA has got it right. I would like to see the maximum number of terms that a party can be in control set at two to avoid the loss of impetus that happens after being in power for so long - it happened with the previous Tory government. Although I'm not a Labour supporter, it was good to see things happening again when Labour first got in, even though I didn't always agree with what they did.

I'm not completely biased against Labour - I'm also happy to attack the Torys and any others - are there any? - whenever I think they are wrong or incompetent or for any other justifiable reason.

Introductions

Well here I am - I finally jumped on the blogwagon. I've been reading a number of blogs on and off for a couple of years now, but never really had the time or inclination before. I will add a profile telling you a bit more about me, but I wish to keep my identity private.

I intend this to be an occasional comment on life here in the UK, especially any of the following subjects: -

• The UK Government and political parties
• Commercialisation of our lives - especially my views on the Banking sector
• Celebrity worship (good and bad)
• The dross that we are fed in the name of entertainment (and my choice of what is good out there)
• Science and Technology - the good, the bad and the 'why on Earth would you want to do that?'
  
• My slant on UK and World issues that interest or worry me
• Pet hates, rants & raves, interests, causes that I support
• Just about anything else
  

You could sum it all up as Life, the Loonyverse and Everything

(with apologies to the late Douglas Adams).