27 comments Add a comment
I'm just wondering who on earth decided that digital TV through an aerial is better than analogue? Oh yes, it has it's benefits of course it does and then there's the all singing all dancing digi-boxes that pause and record etc, very handy. But what if you don't want all that and don't want to pay for these facilities? What if you just want to watch a bit of TV in the evenings to relax?
Of course you can have a basic freeview box for a one off payment (ahem and the annual cost of a TV licence), and then you have access to more channels than on analogue, a digital programme guide and teletext service. Most of these boxes can also remind you of programmes starting, you can even set reminders for a whole series. This is all absolutely wonderful as long as it's not windy, snowing, raining, or a combination of the three. Of course if you live in a poor signal strength area as well then you are well and truly snookered. Poor reception areas can cause problems and the viewing experience isn't exactly enjoyable.
Suddenly the images pixelate, giving those annoying little boxes on the screen as the signal strength wavers, and the sound starts to sound like a robot in distress. Then you are faced with 'No Signal', a few more moments of screeching pixelation and followed by 'No Signal' again. At least with the old analogue pictures when the signal weakened due to bad weather the pictured just 'ghosted' a bit or it 'snowed' slightly over the picture, now you get nothing and it's totally unwatchable!
I can't believe that we are being forced into this digital switch over, hundreds of people are going to have to get themselves a digital cable or satellite subscription; or if they can't do that a freeview digi-box or freesat at extra cost. Not just that there are those who will have to have new aerials put in at more cost as their current aerials cannot receive a digital signal. They'll then pay the BBC licence fee on top of that, to be presented with pixelated picture, screeching and a 'No signal' message when the wind blows! How on earth can that be considered better? Seems like a step back to me, or maybe a step further away from an equal society and widening the gap between the have's and the have not's. Again...
By: Daisy Dukes
Leave a comment
However nothings improved. The picture quality of digital can be affected by weather that didn't really happen with analogue, such as picture freezing and distortion.
We’ve also gone into the HD world and even 3D but all still affected by poor digital quality.
However I could accept all of this if the quality if the channels improved but instead of the promise of hundreds of channels, we get hundreds of crap channels meaning we are all either watching the 5 main channels as before the switch over, or going to third parties such as sky, vigin or a.n. other provided.
I have a set-top box and tried a digital aerial, but I can only get Dave, E4+1, some crap shopping channel and a few others which were so memorable I can't even name them. Digital so far is a load of rubbish. I'm not elligable for a visit to help me sort it out why I can't get all 50 or 80 channels available - even with a digital aerial!, as I am not on benefits, disabled or old enough. Where is the help for those of us who are experiencing problems and need help when it;s not a straight forward switchover?
£40 per month for some virgin, sky basic TV package is outragously expensive.
However, I did read the TV licence is not payable if you only watch DVD's and catch up TV online AFTER it has been broadcast.
You only pay the TV licence if you watch TV as it's broadcast LIVE so to speak.
I think I'm going to ditch digital, buy the occasional DVD and catch up on the odd programme using iplayer and itvplayer, then cancel my TV licence.
I definitely agree with your widening gap between the haves and have nots. It IS all about how much you earn and take home.
Know, Night, it's the Elizabethan world view (Tillyard's as a prelude to understanding some of Shakespeare's works) that's fascinating, the Romantic time that spawned period literature with its melodramatic sentimentalism and tragicomdedy that bred the novelists' novels of manners, and others within the genre, to reflect the social history of the time.
I enjoyed reading how the six Bronte kids grew up and all died before the age of 31, as they belonged to that era. Charlotte was the last to go I think.
Emily's and Charlotte's nons de plume were Ellis and Currer Action, and like Mary Ann Evans who was George Eliot. They had to pretend to be of the 'right gender" to be taken seriously in those days.
UK and Spain are in the works this year; so Haworth is within ken. By the way,most visits are accidental. We dropped in on Dublin last August and wandered into Malahide castle - and what a learning curve? The Talbots running it for eight centuries but for a brief break during Cromwell's reign, the Battle of the Boyne.
For now, just looking foreward to The King's Speech. I doubt the protagonist's grandson's Mark Logue's bio (flipped it through) is as spell-bindng.
Never mind, at least I got to leave Bradford. Thousands have tried and failed.
As for the qualifer relating to the animal, it's a long story. For now, it is a modifier without revealing too much of ourselves and exploits, as if there were. It could have been Sam, the Beckett.
Much obliged, Nightie. First off, there are many good writers whose contributions I enjoy reading; secondly, griping and grousing comes in fits and starts in moments of inspiration or frustration. I'm not sure when mine will turn up.
Besides, good or bad (books, whatever) is relative. One man's belles lettres is another man's pulp fiction, right. I know when I'm not capable of handling the slippery subject of novels, Jack of all trades that I am. You do write well; you ought to take a good crack at it. I mean it with no reservations.
Why “the Tiger” by the way?
As books are not related to the subject of this gripe, maybe you should start one complaining about the lack of good novels? (This is a genuine suggestion not a snipe at you.)
Strange how in those days they seemed to succumb to the scourge of TB - Tressell, Charlotte Bronte I believe, Keats, and Frederic Chopin (A Song to Remember). Those brutal "good old days" - yet, with all the air-borne pollution, lung (or other cancers) cancer was, relatively speaking, non-existent.
Will hold them on my reading list and find them.
Read about Jane Austen's drafts and scripts too. Good thing she had an editor. Ciao, take in the Sunday.
Not everyone - I guess - sees Paris in the same light, symbolized by a hunk of metal (Eiffel Tower like our CN Tower or the Golden Gate bridge). For Rick, the owner of Cafe Americain in Casablanca, it has when he consoles Lisa. "We'll always have Paris," if we follow his drift.
"Play it once, Sam, for old times' sake" means precious little if As Times Goes By conjures up nothing more than a score heard alone in the bedroom while watching the Judy Dench series by the same title. Maybe I got it wrong.
I'm sure there's something about Haworth you will recall years later. In retrospect ...
J.J.A.M.
J.J.A.M.