Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon
It doesn't really matter what I say as you only take note of anything that suits your outlook and disregard the rest. That's been obvious to everyone for a while. I'll continue to deal with the facts rather than the musings of an obsessive crank.[/]Ah, there we have it. You start by rubbishing the source and when I tell you there are multiple sources, you resort to name calling. Obsessive crank. Well thanks for that - I won’t reciprocate because I’m not stooping to that level.
|
I asked you to link any information that contradicts my post, and you say “It really doesn’t matter what I say…..” I’m sorry, epsilon, but you don’t want a serious discussion, you are just playing games, and sadly, you are not the only one to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon
One thing to note though, you are somewhat clueless as to the government's position in this (I'm being kind  ). Government compensation for an increasingly uneconomic system? Why? they have no responsibility for the infrastructure. The only reason for the uncertainty is the rolling licence system favoured by the government in this country, it brings uncertainty. Come up with an actual plan and the infrastructure providers (Arqiva etc) will fund and provide it. The reality is they aren't going to fund anything with no plans in place and no return on their investment. So now the government are putting out feelers for what they should do next. Studies such as the Coleago one are coming back with possible solutions such as keeping a terrestrial system with more advanced codecs such as HEVC and VVC, which could carry more services per multiplex. Another suggestion is more utilisation of SFN networks, which would reduce the spectrum needed but wouldn't be great for regional services. It probably escaped your attention but government funding of transmitter infrastructure ended many years ago with the abolition of the IBA. |
Ah, I’m also clueless on the government’s position, am I? Are you now turning this on its head and arguing that they actually
have a position? The government doesn’t have a clue what they are going to do about this, which I thought you had acknowledged yourself!
Again, you are reading into my posts (or deliberately twisting them) that are not there. I absolutely did not say the government would compensate - I made it absolutely clear that they didn’t have the money to compensate broadcasters, and that therefore, the broadcasters would get what they wanted (ie, IPTV only).
You have not addressed the problem that would negate any plans to upgrade the DTT system, which is that the broadcasters don’t want two forms of distribution, particularly with DTT audiences declining. What I said was that the broadcasters would want compensation to do this, which of course, they won’t get.
You are clinging on to this romanticism that TV channels will somehow survive these changes and ignoring or attempting to rubbish anything that might suggest otherwise.
Some of you ask question after question of me which I try to answer every time, but you don’t answer those questions put to you, do you? So yes, you are playing a game.