I think they just confused the link. It should be pointing to http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/High-Definition. Not that it'll make any difference to UK Government PLC.

If the spectrum isn't allocated to Freeview, does that mean the end of terrestrial TV broadcasting entirely in the long run? Once HD has become commonplace I can't see the TV channels continuing to broadcast in both HD and SD indefinitely.

There are strong parallels with broadband here. Limited bandwidth medium, ever growing demands on bandwidth. I wonder if HD may help fund nationwide FTTC as a combined TV/broadband delivery medium?

"If the spectrum isn't allocated to Freeview, does that mean the end of terrestrial TV broadcasting entirely in the long run? "

Well, yes, but we should be asking ouselves whether we should be using radio for communications which are essentially fixed, and which would be much more suited to wired. What should (but won't) happen is that the government should sell off the bandwidth, and use the money to provide high speed cable to every home in the UK.

Problem is, the government don't view domestic comms as warranting that sort of spend. I think it's also viewed as the sort of expenditure that people should fund through private enterprise, rather than through taxation.

What I think is more likely is that the demise of Freeview should encourage private money to be diverted into cable delivery. The Beeb have obligations on funding delivery (assuming they in turn remain funded through a licence fee), and also if people don't have the option of Freeview then they're more likely to pay for other ways of receiving TV directly. If you combine this with both fixed line broadband and fixed line phone spend, this is a lot of money potentially available for laying new FTTC infrastructure. I'm sure this is what Richard Branson is thinking in buying NTL. Virgin Media shares may well turn out to be a very good long term investment.

Of course anything funded by private expenditure like this is always going have the problem of leaving out less densely populated areas. Satellite caters for this as far as TV is concerned, but it's difficult to see how fixed line based broadband services to low population areas are ever going to be funded in the future. If you want to live out in the sticks then perhaps you'll just have to put up with poor broadband for the foreseeable future.

The proposition that Freeview is in demise is a myth propagated by BSkyB, as its business is being directly affected by Freeview's success. Freeview is now the number one digital TV platform and after digital switch over will be the number one TV platform.

The future battle is likely to be over high definition (HD), as there is currently no room for HD terrestrial broadcasts unless spectrum earmarked for sell off by the government is allocated for HD, or existing standard definition (SD) space is used for HD (which would result in a loss of existing SD channels. The ITU have already agreed frequencies amounting to 2 new national multiplexes which could be used but might get sold off.

It is in BSkyB's interests to keep HD off terrestrial TV as then it can promote its own HD service as a monopoly. The argument against Sky is that it would be best to make HD available on all platforms, satellite, cable and terrestrial.

There is an Ofcom consultation closing in a day or two on this whole matter; the only comments I would make here is that the last time spectrum was auctioned off to the Telcos, the government did achieve fantastic bids, but the 3G spectrum involved is still not being used profitably ten years later. The UHF band IV/V spectrum is used everywhere else in Europe for TV broadcasting (with minor exceptions like radio astronomy) and the Telcos do not need UHF frequencies; they can use other spectrum unusable for terrestrial TV broadcasting. And finally even if the spectrum is auctioned off, broadcasters like the BBC and Channel 4 could not afford to buy it for HD anyway. All existing spectrum was gifted which enables 98.5% of the population to be reached by public service channels using more than 1100 terrestrial transmitter sites.

If you read back, my premise that Freeview will disappear was based on the idea that Freeview fails to get HD spectrum because the spectrum will be more valuable elsewhere, and then as a consequence inevitably dies in the long term. I tend to agree with zebedeee that it does seem a waste to use valuable wireless spectrum to provide a predominently fixed location service (TV in the home). However I think cable companies are more likely to benefit than Sky, as expanding cable infrastructure can also be funded from broadband and telephone expenditure, whereas satellite infrastructure is only really suited to TV. Sky's current monopoly on HD will have long ago disappeared by the time analogue TV is switched off.

Sky's HD monopoly is based on exclusive sports rights which is the essence of their business model, and perhaps is the only way terrestrial broadcasters could really compete in HD. But as Sky has signed up most of the high profile sport, that won't happen easily. Unless terrestrial spectrum is released for broadcasting HD, I think Sky's monopoly will last well past 2012. I cannot see public broadcasting in the UK competing with commercial interests and spectrum unless your definition of public broadcasting follows the US model.

I didn't mention cable because I can't see it ever having serious penetration levels in the near future compared to terrestrial TV and satellite. For those in urban areas though, they will get it all, high speed broadband included, unless their satellite access is blocked by tall buildings.

Current users of Freeview are presumably not bothered about Sky's HD sports rights, otherwise they would already be using Sky and not Freeview. Instead Freeview viewers are concerned the main TV channels being in HD, which is what the discussion is about. Again, the reason I think that cable is going to make a comeback if Freeview goes is that cable can take the revenue from all three domestic services, whereas satellite is stuck with TV revenue only,and as you say they have a business focus on sports. There's a role for both Sky and cable, but perhaps Sky will end up focussing on just the sports market and sparsely populated areas, with cable for everybody else.

According to the government it does.

"Sky's current monopoly on HD will have long ago disappeared by the time analogue TV is switched off."

Sorry, I can't agree with that last sentence. There's a lot of people (including myself) whose only chance of seeing HDTV in the next decade is via satellite. We have had NTL cable here for about 7 years, and in all that time NTL have connected up three customers in the town - the town hall, the library and the local high school. They don't appear to have any plans to expand the service any further. I suspect that my town is not unlike thousands of others in that respect. The spectrum vacated by analogue TV will undoubtedly be sold off - there is too much money at stake for any government to resist.

I already have both FreeView and FreeSat (although neither box is HD compatible).

I do not mind how I get HD. So long as it is free from further subscription over TV my licence fee.