All posts by Peter
Below are all of Peter's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.@trevorjharris: why should these channels be made available on satellite? Freeview works perfectly - perhaps those wanting the local TV service can buy an aerial and a Freeview box if there TV can't receive terrestrial?
Satellite is great for transmitting a standard programme (such as Sky 1) over a wide area, but for a one covering a small area it is overkill. Why should I need to have Grimsby local television in Sussex?
Having to pay for satellite transmission of local TV is probably much too costly for the small audience.
The best option for regional is (IMHO) terrestrial or multicast. Satellite should only be used for country wide signals.
I'm actually glad I don't use satellite anymore - except to get free coverage of Grand Prix races from RTL - anything to avoid supporting Sky.
I'd really recommend the BBC stop distributing regional programmes from satellite and just have national ones - just like Sky does.
BTW - you've never answered the questions - 1. Do you work for Sky? 2. Do you have shares in Sky? 3. How much do you pay Sky every month for your TV service? 4. Why are you so against license fee based broadcasting?
Also wasn't Doctor Who 50th anniversary amazing! What has Sky in the UK created (i.e. not provided by Fox US) that comes anywhere near to it?
| link to this comment |
@Charles - how do satellite system restrict access to FTA channels?
I know that the default BBC and ITV channels used for Sky (and I assume Freesat) reception is based upon post code, but what if you have a different system?
How much does it cost the TV companies to provide the system as well as transponder charges?
And I assume the system only affects the default local TV channel - are you able to switch to others?
| link to this comment |
@Briantist @MikeB I wasn't surprised that the Sky PR guru @trevorjharris stayed up late to post his extreme anti-BBC views.
I've been tracking his comments for several months and he does appear have a very one-sided, pro-Sky view of life and apparently loves and purchases everything that Sky provides and feels the need to publicise their products whenever he can.
I've asked @trevorjharris several times to come clean on whether he either works for Sky or is a major shareholder but he won't own up.
I've asked him how much he pays Sky every month for all the services but he won't tell us this either. I assume it is a lot more than 40p per day.
As @MikeB says, @trevorjharris comes up with his own personal views as being facts.
I recall last year he predicted that all TV programmes would be in 3D by 2016. One thing we can be sure of with @trevorjharris is that when he makes a factual statement it is usually wrong.
I wanted to suggest to him that he got out more so that he could see the real world in super-HD and in real 3D rather than forced stereoscopic.
I just can't work out why he feels the need to force his pro-expensive subscription views on a group that focuses on "free TV".
@trevorjharris - please can you explain why?
| link to this comment |
@trevorjharris - reading your latest comments makes me realize you live in a different world to most people.
BBC HD bit rates lowered - yes - during initial trials the BBC allocated an entire transponder to a single HD channel. Now the BBC, like many broadcasters, including Sky, fit more than 1 into the same space. IMHO the picture quality may not be as good as it was when it was 1 channel per transponder, but running 5 now with adaptive bit rates and better compression algorithms is perfectly good enough, and significantly better than SD. There is also the minor issue to the cost of providing separate transponders for every HD channel if you want 20 mbit/sec for every channelwhich you seem to ignore.
Who cares (other than you!) about the artifacts in the background of question time? Do you watch to listen to what is being said or to admire the picture quality?
If you recall you bleated on about wanting more broadcast 3D channels, but were more than happy to accept a 50% reduction in horizontal resolution to achieve it.
Regarding BBC3 and BBC4 - so you don't watch these channels so they should be shut down - what a selfish arrogant attitude from you! IMHO these are some of the best channels for new programming, but if all you ever seem to do it watch football then I guess it is of little interest to you.
DAB bit rates lowered - who really cares - again IMHO the audio quality of DAB is definitely better than FM. I imagine if you were hiper-critical and looking for yet another reason to attack the BBC then I guess you would pick up on this.
I think it is really about time you got a life and stopped being hiper-critical of an organisation that has it's faults but definitely no more than the Murdoch controlled Sky emporium and it's dubious news gathering techniques and continuous price increases,
I'm still actually very proud, and impressed by what the BBC achieves for 40p per day.
Again I ask you, but still you refuse to answer, how much do you pay Sky per day for their services?
| link to this comment |
@trevorjharris - of course you have the right to criticize. It's when criticism of the BBC becomes a paranoia that perhaps you need to do something about it.
And as well as rights, you also have responsibilities:
1. to understand the business and technical constraints - satellite distribution is NOT always the best way - it costs money to have SD and HD and regional and the BBC have had the license fee frozen for several years.
2. to move on when your points will not be addressed - you continue to raise the same points again and again and again like a stuck record.
3. to own up as to any conflict of interest you may have - Do you work directly or indirectly for Sky? Do you invest in Sky? For the nth time of asking - HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY SKY EACH DAY FOR YOUR SERVICES?
As far as HD bit rates are concerned do you know which major broadcasters world-wide continue to broadcast HD at 12mb/sec? Does your beloved Sky?
Has the EBU recommended value changed since it was originally published?
And just because the EBU recommends something doesn't mean broadcasters have to adhere to it.
Similarly on DAB - what are the recommended bit rates now? What do audio tests in real world environments come up with?
And now you raise the £100m on computersystems again - same old issues - time and time again - you really need to move on!
| link to this comment |
@trevorjharris - so I ask you to tell me how much you pay Sky and you turn it into a sales pitch for Sky Fibre Broadband!
I'm not interested in Sky Fibre Broadband prices but apparently the list price for Unlimited Pro is £30 per month so you must be getting a special discount - are you a Sky employee perhaps?
The list price for Sky HD + Sports+ Movies+ Entertainment Extra is £67.25 per month, so this equates to £2.21 per day or almost 6x the cost of the license fee.
I'm glad you can afford it and feel it is good value for money.
And now you raise Dolby Surround - again and again and again and again...
| link to this comment |
@trevorjharris - well you certainly negotiated a good deal with Sky - bet you have a good giggle at all those who are paying "list price" for the service.
You may well have a plethora of channels available, but that doesn't worry me - I'm just happy paying 40p per day for all the ones I really want; free-to-air.
HD and surround is nice to have, but not, to me, essential - perhaps they are to you?
As long as you are happy with your deal that is all that matters.You are certainly a "Sky Lover". Hope you can keep the good deals after the 12 months is up.
P.S. can you answer the other, technical points I raised.
| link to this comment |
@trevor
Sorry - but IMHO you really do have a problem and you need to talk to someone qualified. You are holding onto grudges and beliefs about the BBC and are not moving on.
Your statements above look like those of conspiracy theorists who create stories based on a perceived lack of information and just continue to spout the same things again and again.
All major corporations make mistakes - it is just with the BBC, and major public institutions, that they tend to be well publicised.
Hopefully the BBC has learnt from the mistakes it has made in the past and has moved on. Have you moved on?
The BBC has had its license fee capped and has to reduce costs and look as increasing income. Isn't this wonderful news?
Has Sky capped their charges?
With private institutions, even those owned by shareholders, the mistakes are kept quiet to avoid embarrassment and to maintain share price.
You hold on to snippets of information that may well no longer be true and regurgitate them as facts to backup your statements.
Just because PAL had a quality standard and MP4 is only an issue to you. What really matters is the apparent PQ and if you compare current BBC1 HD with BBC PAL DVD the HD PQ is immeasurably better IMHO and they have 5 HD channels using the same bandwidth as 1 PAL channel.
Why aren't you congratulating the BBC on this achievement?
You do not know what bit rates Sky uses, but assume it is higher. How do you measure Sky HD bit rates?
What do other countries in the EU use? I just did a quick check on my PC satellite receiver and the BBC HD rates are very similar to other FTA satellite HD bit rates.
You do not know what the minimum bit rates the EBU recommends now. Perhaps there is no recommendation now? But you persist with old information.
Of course bit rate can impact picture quality at extremes but at normal viewing distances, what is the perceived difference? As I commented previously, I and many others are quite content with what we get FTA. You apparently do not - this is you problem - move on!
You seem more interested in the picture definition than the content of the programmes. You need to get out more and see real life! Have you been to the theatre or a concert recently? Have you walked in the park and listened to the birds and smelt newly-mown grass? All IMHO immeasurably better than AC3 surround sound HD TV.
Sky Sports 1 HD may well have better PQ than BBC 1 HD. What I don't know I don't care about.
You don't know the bit rate of Sky Sports 1 HD. You are making the assumption that the PQ difference you see is related to bit rate. Could there be any other reason? You don't know - you just assume bit rates are the cause.
Yes the bit rate of Blu-ray can be a lot higher then satellite. So Blu-Ray has more definition than Satellite HD. Satellite HD can have better definition than DVD which in turn can be better than analogues. So what?
You seem totally "stuck in the groove" and don't seem to want to get out of it,
Sorry again, but I think you really need to move on, and if necessary seek some professional help.
| link to this comment |
It may be sometime before the additional HD channels from Rowridge start. I sent Digital UK an email as I had been expecting them to start this month,
There response was "The Com7 HD frequency from the Rowridge transmitter has not launched yet. This is due to happen before July, in time for the commonwealth games. I would advise you to regularly check the above link, as the details are updated and a firm date will be added as soon as we are informed."
The link referenced was using their detailed coverage checker at Digital UK - Coverage checker (BN412HT)
| link to this comment |
Page 1
Thursday 25 July 2013 12:28PM
Brighton
I live in the BN41 area of Brighton & Hove with my aerial currently pointing at the Whitehawk transmitter. I currently also get (I think) a good signal from the Rowridge transmitter through the back of the same aerial even though it is (obviously) pointing the wrong way.
Does this mean that I may be able to get the new HD services from Rowridge (when they start) without doing any aerial upgrades?
I want to keep my local services from Whitehawk to stay on the BBC South East region, and to get local TV when it begins. I suppose the other option would be to add a second aerial pointing to Rowridge and use some form of combiner?