« Renault’s Ingenious Gadget Holder | Main | Sony Re-designing The PSP »
No HDTV For Freeview Viewers
Despite the protests from leading companies and broadcasters, including
the BBC, Dixons, Samsung, Sony and Channel 4 among others, the regulator Ofcom
is still proposing to sell off publicly owned air-space to the highest bidder.
If this goes ahead then the likely winners will be the mobile phone companies
and there will not be enough spectrum to carry HD broadcasts to millions of UK
Freeview viewers. One-in-four TV sets in the UK are hooked up to Freeview
devices.
The sale of this air space would mean that most people would have to
subscribe to a pricey HDTV service like Sky. There is still one week left to
sign the HDForAll petition to government, while the Ofcom public consultation period
ends on March 22nd. Ofcom will report its findings in the summer.
If you want to help ensure that you can get HDTV without paying through the nose for it, then now’s your last chance. Go here.
Usually regulators work closely in hand with the government and this one is all about raking in as much revenue from industry as possible. Remember 3G. Turned out to be a white elephant. Ultimately,the public will have to pay.
Posted by: Jason Charlesworth | March 16, 2007 2:47 PM
bout time you give us something for free
Posted by: paul moran | March 16, 2007 3:51 PM
The Labour party used to stand up for the rights of the common man.
Now after being forced to incur significant expense (ie set top box and new aerial)we can now look forward to either an inferior service or held to ranson by the Murdocks of this world who are out to squeeze every last penny from us - just look at the appalling way Sky have behaved recently towards Virgin Media.
This is one of many nails in the Labour Party's coffin come the next election!
Posted by: Melvin Elmy | March 16, 2007 9:04 PM
Not everyone has the money available to have HD TV from Sky.Ofcom should think of the PEOPLE,the VIEWERS,
and allow HD to become available on Freeview so that we can all have a TV service second to none when the present system is finally turned off in 2011/12.
Posted by: Gregory Chambers | March 19, 2007 10:57 AM
Well, I've written to my MP to encourage him to ask awkard questions, and get a vote against such a sell-off!
Flagrant abuse of resources seems to be the norm for governments and their various bodies these days.
Hassle your MP - they do take notice of us!!
Posted by: Peter Balcon | March 19, 2007 4:23 PM
I think its outrageous that people should have to subscribe to another Television Provider when we already have to pay exclusively for the BBC License. Its about time the BBC found another way to fund themselves! Why are they so special? We hardly ever watch BBC! If people were forced to pay for anything else they didn't want, it would be called demanding money with menaces! As pensioners, we can't afford to subscribe to another TV provider as well as pay for the BBC licence when we go over to digital. It seems to me we're going backwards in this respect. We should be able to get all the TV channels anyway just like before! I don't think folks have woken up yet to the full implication of this switchover. Wait till they find they can't record a channel on their video at the same time as watching another live, without having to pay yet more for a special recorder!
Posted by: P. Edwards | March 22, 2007 5:38 PM
"Just leave it to the corporations, they'll take care of us" seems to be a common mantra these days :)
I live in Florida currently, but intend to return to the UK. Cable TV costs $30 (which you have to compare to 30 UKP if you're not a tourist) a month here, which makes you realise just how GOOD BBC is at a tenner a month. I'd love to pay a tenner a month for HDTV BBC + all the "free" (ad based) channels. Here it's a joke, 30 a month for the MOST basic of non-HD channels, HD is more, BBCA is more, etc etc. Corporations like Sky etc cannot be trusted we all know how much it would cost if they had their way!
Posted by: Ken Davis | April 9, 2007 4:22 PM