Retain FM radio

As part of the digital Britain report, it was proposed that national FM radio be switched off to free up bandwidth for DAB broadcasts. I believe that FM radio should be retained. I also believe that if we are to switch to a digital format, there are several formats which have considerable advantages over DAB.

I suggested to the last government that FM should be retained and DAB allowed to die. Their response was that DAB had to proceed since there were already a few million DAB sets in the UK. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of FM receivers in the UK seemed lost on them.

Why is this idea important?

As part of the digital Britain report, it was proposed that national FM radio be switched off to free up bandwidth for DAB broadcasts. I believe that FM radio should be retained. I also believe that if we are to switch to a digital format, there are several formats which have considerable advantages over DAB.

I suggested to the last government that FM should be retained and DAB allowed to die. Their response was that DAB had to proceed since there were already a few million DAB sets in the UK. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of FM receivers in the UK seemed lost on them.

Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Keep analogue television

Maintain analogue television signals.  By all means let those who want digital television buy their new sets, but leave the rest of us who are happy with our 4 (or 5) channels alone!

Why is this idea important?

Maintain analogue television signals.  By all means let those who want digital television buy their new sets, but leave the rest of us who are happy with our 4 (or 5) channels alone!

Retention of emails

My ISP has aadmitted to retaining my emails from as far back as 2001, claiing that the law requires them to do so. It felt as though I had just discovered that the post office had been photocopying all my mail n case the state later wanted to read it.

Any such laws should not only be repealed, but data protection laws strengthened to prevent providers from retaining details of private emails.

Why is this idea important?

My ISP has aadmitted to retaining my emails from as far back as 2001, claiing that the law requires them to do so. It felt as though I had just discovered that the post office had been photocopying all my mail n case the state later wanted to read it.

Any such laws should not only be repealed, but data protection laws strengthened to prevent providers from retaining details of private emails.

cancel FM and AM radio switchoff

The Communications Minister Ed Vaizey says that "listeners need to be persuaded that the quality (of Digital Radio) is high, Digital Radio is affordable and the quality is as good as FM"

This seems to be the same attitude as the last government; i.e. if the public don't want it, the public are wrong, so they must be persuaded. Well it is Mr Vaizey that must be persuaded, that is what many of us are trying to do. Here are the arguments:

1. He says that "Digtal Radio is a huge opportunity…" Well, no. Digital Radio WAS a huge opportunity 25 years ago when it was intruduced (first with test transmissions in the Midlands). Now we have the prospect of Radio 6 Music, one of the few digital only stations, being closed down.

2. The quality is as good as FM. Wrong. The quality has the potential to be better than FM, but the bit rate is variable, and often restricted in order to accomodate more stations. Pre-emphesis and companding used on FM is also used in digital transmission.

3. The FM transmissions run in parallel with digital radio would require no seperate distribution system, the same distribution feeds both at the same transmitter sites, as it does at the moment. Only continued maintenance revenue for already exitisting FM transmitters would be needed. The cost of this is less than the extra battery current required by every portable receiver, of which there are tens of thousands per transmitter.

4. Not only do car radios need to be replaced, as in recent publicity, but many Hi-Fi enthusiasts have the FM tuner integral to their music system. Buying a portable is not an option, enthusiasts want to reproduce the signal; through their quality loudspeakers. Also the substitution of a digital tuner for an FM one is not simple in such a system.

5. For television, analogue closure was necessary to allow the full power digital transmissions in all areas in the same transmission bands (bands IV and V). The FM band II is not required for digital use because the digital band is seperate.

6  If you want a government which allows people choice, why not have FM and Digital both available, and let the listeners choose. The cost of continuing an already existing FM transmitter in a given area (paid for by the listener through the television lisence fee) will be less than the ongoing cost of extra batteries for digital receivers. (also paid for by the listener).

7. Have you actually listened to a digital receiver, such as the Gemini, and compared the quality to reasonable size stereo speakers (such as the LS3/5A by Rogers, a BBC design, commercially available)? I think if committee had done this in an A-B test, you would stop saying that Digital is as good as FM. One has to consider the whole system and what comes out in the listeners' room.

8.  Radio 4 Long Wave is valued by many sports listeners, particularily for Test Match Special. The last time its closure was proposed there was a demonstration march to Broadcasting House.

9. What will happen to digital services in a serious national emergency, when radio is the only means of contacting the people? AM receivers are small, simple, and can be used almost anywhere with an internal ferrite rod aerial.

                                         thanks for the opportunity to give my opinion,

                                                           Colin Pierpoint

Why is this idea important?

The Communications Minister Ed Vaizey says that "listeners need to be persuaded that the quality (of Digital Radio) is high, Digital Radio is affordable and the quality is as good as FM"

This seems to be the same attitude as the last government; i.e. if the public don't want it, the public are wrong, so they must be persuaded. Well it is Mr Vaizey that must be persuaded, that is what many of us are trying to do. Here are the arguments:

1. He says that "Digtal Radio is a huge opportunity…" Well, no. Digital Radio WAS a huge opportunity 25 years ago when it was intruduced (first with test transmissions in the Midlands). Now we have the prospect of Radio 6 Music, one of the few digital only stations, being closed down.

2. The quality is as good as FM. Wrong. The quality has the potential to be better than FM, but the bit rate is variable, and often restricted in order to accomodate more stations. Pre-emphesis and companding used on FM is also used in digital transmission.

3. The FM transmissions run in parallel with digital radio would require no seperate distribution system, the same distribution feeds both at the same transmitter sites, as it does at the moment. Only continued maintenance revenue for already exitisting FM transmitters would be needed. The cost of this is less than the extra battery current required by every portable receiver, of which there are tens of thousands per transmitter.

4. Not only do car radios need to be replaced, as in recent publicity, but many Hi-Fi enthusiasts have the FM tuner integral to their music system. Buying a portable is not an option, enthusiasts want to reproduce the signal; through their quality loudspeakers. Also the substitution of a digital tuner for an FM one is not simple in such a system.

5. For television, analogue closure was necessary to allow the full power digital transmissions in all areas in the same transmission bands (bands IV and V). The FM band II is not required for digital use because the digital band is seperate.

6  If you want a government which allows people choice, why not have FM and Digital both available, and let the listeners choose. The cost of continuing an already existing FM transmitter in a given area (paid for by the listener through the television lisence fee) will be less than the ongoing cost of extra batteries for digital receivers. (also paid for by the listener).

7. Have you actually listened to a digital receiver, such as the Gemini, and compared the quality to reasonable size stereo speakers (such as the LS3/5A by Rogers, a BBC design, commercially available)? I think if committee had done this in an A-B test, you would stop saying that Digital is as good as FM. One has to consider the whole system and what comes out in the listeners' room.

8.  Radio 4 Long Wave is valued by many sports listeners, particularily for Test Match Special. The last time its closure was proposed there was a demonstration march to Broadcasting House.

9. What will happen to digital services in a serious national emergency, when radio is the only means of contacting the people? AM receivers are small, simple, and can be used almost anywhere with an internal ferrite rod aerial.

                                         thanks for the opportunity to give my opinion,

                                                           Colin Pierpoint

FM radio

Let's keep FM radio. I have one digital radio in the house ( a free set, courtesy of Classic FM.)And I have  four FM radios, plus one in the car that I do not want the expense of replacing.Where are all the redundant sets to go?  Landfill?Expense

Why is this idea important?

Let's keep FM radio. I have one digital radio in the house ( a free set, courtesy of Classic FM.)And I have  four FM radios, plus one in the car that I do not want the expense of replacing.Where are all the redundant sets to go?  Landfill?Expense

Keep FM radio

No compulsory switch-off of FM transmissions to compel us to change to digital, making our many FM receivers useless. 

Digital uses much more power, and incurs considerable capital costs [sets are much dearer], with no way of recyling the old radios.   Will not be able to go from one room to another set with continuity of programme.  Music will be less faithfully reproduced.

 Also, the Time Signal will be wrong!

Why is this idea important?

No compulsory switch-off of FM transmissions to compel us to change to digital, making our many FM receivers useless. 

Digital uses much more power, and incurs considerable capital costs [sets are much dearer], with no way of recyling the old radios.   Will not be able to go from one room to another set with continuity of programme.  Music will be less faithfully reproduced.

 Also, the Time Signal will be wrong!

Repeal Digital Economy Act

While I agree that there should be *some* measures taken to limit or punish those who use the internet to steal, I feel that the current bill is highly flawed and has removed civil liberties that should remain, even if a household is caught.

As it stands, the Digital Economy Bill is too broad. It targets the bill payer of the family instead of the individual culprits. As a family is composed of many differing age groups and incomes, all using the same wireless or wired internet, it shouldn't be right that a mother, who does not use the internet, is punished because her son downloads an album illegally. 

There is also an issue that there is currently no way to go to trial over these allegations. As I understand the bill, you receive a letter from your ISP (internet service provider) saying you've been caught and either have to pay a fine or lose your connection. There seems to be no way to have a fair trial on these allegations, which is unrealistic, as many peer-to-peer sharing or torrenting CAN be used for legal practices, such as sharing large amounts of data through a business. However, they may flag up as illegal sharing and lead whole families into bankruptcy. 

Instead, Government should focus on educating the youth and fair warning systems. This would allow the parents to talk to their children if their household is warned.

I also feel that there should be technological experts on hand to give fully educated guidance to government, as there has been a lack of understanding in how the Internet works from both the House of Lords and House of Commons whenever the issue of the Internet has been raised. 

Why is this idea important?

While I agree that there should be *some* measures taken to limit or punish those who use the internet to steal, I feel that the current bill is highly flawed and has removed civil liberties that should remain, even if a household is caught.

As it stands, the Digital Economy Bill is too broad. It targets the bill payer of the family instead of the individual culprits. As a family is composed of many differing age groups and incomes, all using the same wireless or wired internet, it shouldn't be right that a mother, who does not use the internet, is punished because her son downloads an album illegally. 

There is also an issue that there is currently no way to go to trial over these allegations. As I understand the bill, you receive a letter from your ISP (internet service provider) saying you've been caught and either have to pay a fine or lose your connection. There seems to be no way to have a fair trial on these allegations, which is unrealistic, as many peer-to-peer sharing or torrenting CAN be used for legal practices, such as sharing large amounts of data through a business. However, they may flag up as illegal sharing and lead whole families into bankruptcy. 

Instead, Government should focus on educating the youth and fair warning systems. This would allow the parents to talk to their children if their household is warned.

I also feel that there should be technological experts on hand to give fully educated guidance to government, as there has been a lack of understanding in how the Internet works from both the House of Lords and House of Commons whenever the issue of the Internet has been raised. 

Repeal the digital economy act

This act in its current form needs to be removed and reconsidered.  Artists copyright needs to be upheld  but not by snooping on everyone's internet activity.

This act has allowed Virgin media to use DPI technology to spy on ALL their customers internet connections to check what their viewing is "not copyrighted" 

This is the same technology used by Iran and China to control their citizens.  I thought we had invasion on privacy laws in Europe.  

Obviously not.

Why is this idea important?

This act in its current form needs to be removed and reconsidered.  Artists copyright needs to be upheld  but not by snooping on everyone's internet activity.

This act has allowed Virgin media to use DPI technology to spy on ALL their customers internet connections to check what their viewing is "not copyrighted" 

This is the same technology used by Iran and China to control their citizens.  I thought we had invasion on privacy laws in Europe.  

Obviously not.

Legalise Filesharing

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

Why is this idea important?

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

Clarification of consumer rights vs content publisher rights, with consumer rights held paramount

Introduction:

Content duplication laws have recently run amok, but it's not required to perform a massive overhaul of copyright laws to solve this.  What's required is that a definitive list of consumer rights is produced, and considered to have a higher priority than the definitive list of content publisher rights.

For example:

Consumer rights

  1. Consumers have the right to duplicate content for the purpose of backup / disaster recovery
  2. Consumers have the right to duplicate content by transferring to a digital media format, for the purpose of playback on digital media equipment, such as portable media players, digital media adapters, computers, etc.
  3. Comsumers have the right to play media in a private context such as a private party or family gathering.
  4. Consumers have the right to access offline content whenever, wherever, and however they choose.  (which makes Ubisoft's PC DRM illegal – yay)

Consumer right exclusions

  1. Consumers do not have the right to duplicate media for the purpose of sale or free transfer to an unrelated individual or group, or piracy.  (Knowingly uploading to a public website, for example, would be illegal)

Clarifications

  1. Piracy is defined as illegally procurring a copy of content that is reasonably available in the country where the act occurred.  (which means that releasing The Shield DVD in the US does not mean it's available in the UK, thank you very much, Fox)
  2. Anti-piracy ads automatically exempt content from any anti-piracy protection afforded by the law.

Publishers would have the right to protect their IPs, but not at the expense of my rigt to use content that I have paid for. 

Why is this idea important?

Introduction:

Content duplication laws have recently run amok, but it's not required to perform a massive overhaul of copyright laws to solve this.  What's required is that a definitive list of consumer rights is produced, and considered to have a higher priority than the definitive list of content publisher rights.

For example:

Consumer rights

  1. Consumers have the right to duplicate content for the purpose of backup / disaster recovery
  2. Consumers have the right to duplicate content by transferring to a digital media format, for the purpose of playback on digital media equipment, such as portable media players, digital media adapters, computers, etc.
  3. Comsumers have the right to play media in a private context such as a private party or family gathering.
  4. Consumers have the right to access offline content whenever, wherever, and however they choose.  (which makes Ubisoft's PC DRM illegal – yay)

Consumer right exclusions

  1. Consumers do not have the right to duplicate media for the purpose of sale or free transfer to an unrelated individual or group, or piracy.  (Knowingly uploading to a public website, for example, would be illegal)

Clarifications

  1. Piracy is defined as illegally procurring a copy of content that is reasonably available in the country where the act occurred.  (which means that releasing The Shield DVD in the US does not mean it's available in the UK, thank you very much, Fox)
  2. Anti-piracy ads automatically exempt content from any anti-piracy protection afforded by the law.

Publishers would have the right to protect their IPs, but not at the expense of my rigt to use content that I have paid for. 

digital economy bill readressed

This draconian bill was rushed through parliment by Lord Mandelson to appease the film studios regardless of peoples human rights, this should be redressed.

 

This was rushed through in April of this year just before the election,  the bill was not correctly addressed and processed  by the commons.

Why is this idea important?

This draconian bill was rushed through parliment by Lord Mandelson to appease the film studios regardless of peoples human rights, this should be redressed.

 

This was rushed through in April of this year just before the election,  the bill was not correctly addressed and processed  by the commons.

Repeal the Digital Economy Act, an undemocratic

 

I believe one of the priorities of the new coalition government should be a free an open debate on the "Digital Economy Act". It's as simple as that. It was passed through parliament without a fair vote and any real scrutiny. By keeping this undemocratic and downright oppressive act  we are not only threatening the rights of UK citizens but in addition we are putting Britain's future growth at risk.

Why is this idea important?

 

I believe one of the priorities of the new coalition government should be a free an open debate on the "Digital Economy Act". It's as simple as that. It was passed through parliament without a fair vote and any real scrutiny. By keeping this undemocratic and downright oppressive act  we are not only threatening the rights of UK citizens but in addition we are putting Britain's future growth at risk.

Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.

It should be repealed unconditionally.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.

It should be repealed unconditionally.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

This law is unessessary – we already have laws to prevent people committing acts of sexual violence towards others.  This law prevents people making or viewing a record of acts which occur between consenting adults. 

Why is this idea important?

This law is unessessary – we already have laws to prevent people committing acts of sexual violence towards others.  This law prevents people making or viewing a record of acts which occur between consenting adults.