News
TV
Freeview
Freesat
Maps
Radio
Help!
Archive (2002-)
All posts by Trevor Harris
Below are all of Trevor Harris's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.Sam I agree that the number of HD channels per multiplex should be kept at 4. Unfortunatly this is Ofcom. They reduced the bitrate of DAB dispite a public consultation which showed that most people did not want a reduction in sound quality.
I don't agree about 3D though. 8% of males and 0.5% of females are colour blind but that does not mean we should not have colour television.
As for headaches there has been some scientific study. This study looks at visual comfort:
The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays
This shows how these adverse effects can be minimised.
We cannot be sure that all the channels will be used for HD. It must be remembered that these channels will be auctioned so Ofcom will be looking for the most lucrative solution.
This shows
link to this comment |
Whenever the BBC makes a change like this one wonders what is the real reason for the change. Of course it will save money but is that the real reason? Frankly I don't know.
One thing is sure picture quality is going to be reduced even more on three transponders. SD is becoming more and more unwatchable on large screen televisions.
The only thing I watch on the red button is the F1 practice sessions. The Five Live commentry and the F1 pictures make quite an interesting combination. Next season though we will get the practice sessions in HD on Sky.
This progressive reduction in services makes it very difficult to justify the continuation of the licence fee.
link to this comment |
I think Mike that you might have mis-understood what the BBC is doing here. The BBC has said they are reducing services to save money and to decrease disparity with Freeview. So even if Sky were to free up space on 2D the BBC wouldn't take it. It looks as though Freeview will not be able to expand till 2016 so the BBC will not need any more space till then. It is not certain that the BBC will be able to expand either on freeview or satellite in 2016. It all depends if the Government allows an increase in the licence fee.
My guess is that the BBC are unlikely to apply any of the space on 1N. They simply cannot afford it.
I think that your hypothesis that Sky wouldn't add the Service Information data necessary for them to appear on Freesat to this Sky-operated transponder to be incorrect. My understanding is that Sky are legally obliged to provide this service.
link to this comment |
In view of the Satellite transponder cutbacks I wonder if the BBC will be able to afford any of the new freeview multiplexes in 2016. My guess is they will not bid for any of them without a substancial increase in licence fee.
link to this comment |
With inflation running so high and the licence fee fixed I cannot see how the BBC can afford any expansion without cutting else where. If the BBC do take a channel on C37 they would also have to take a satellite channel.
I have always felt that it would be better for BBC HD to be BBC 2 HD. I don't watch BBC3 ( too old) so I would have prefered BBC 4 to go HD first. The BBC certainly need more HD channels for the Olympics. At least Eurosport will be able to provide some extra coverage.
I should say I don't watch BBC very much because most of it is either repeats or trash television. One thing I did watch is F1 but I will be watching it on Sky next season. Even the BBC news has been very poor recently. Sky News coverage of Libya has been exceptional and some of it in HD. So I don't see why I should have to pay the licence fee to support the BBC executives lifstyle.
Squeezing another HD channel on BBCB is also bad news.
link to this comment |
I believe these figures cover all platforms including Freesat and Freesat from Sky. I am sure if you only included Sky Subscribers the proportion of pay tv would be much higher. Otherwise people would not subscribe.
First of all cheap products always sell in higher quanities than the more expensive. Cheap cars sell in much greater quanities than Aston Martins. So it is not suprizing that the so call free channels are viewed the most.
For me the most watched channel by far is Sky Sports 1. On the BBC I will only watch F1, New Tricks, and Who Do you Think You Are. As far as I am concerned that is very poor value for money especially as F1 is going to Sky next season. The rest of BBC output is either trash or repeats.
Actually for a number of years ITV did refuse to go on the Sky EPG but eventually changed their minds because they were loosing audiences. I don't think there is any law that makes the BBC go on the Sky EPG. If the BBC did refuse they would however face a barrarge of complaints from Sky subscribers who also have to pay the licence fee.
As I understand it Skys EPG charges have to be the same for all broadcasters so the BBC is not paying any more than anyone else.
link to this comment |
Brian I did not mean to imply anyone should pay SSSL on Freesat. Actually Freesat is dependent on Sky for their EPG infrastructure so do have to pay Sky for those services.
Sky news has chosen not to go on the Freesat EPG just as ITV refused to go on the Sky EPG at one time. It's a free world. The situation is different with the BBC though as everone has to pay for the BBC licence. The BBC policy of being on all platforms is proper while the universal fee exists.
The BBC also has to pay Virgin so this is not just a Sky issue.
The only reason for any free to air channel being on the Sky EPG is that there is a profit in doing so. In other words the number of viewers using the EPG justifies the cost.
link to this comment |
@Brian
The Freesat EPG and MHEG data streams have to go though Sky's adaptation hub where it is multipexed with Sky's own data streams. Sky quite correctly have a quality control procedure to implement changes. This did at one time slow down the Freesat expansion.
We all saw what happened when the BBC changed it's HD transponder to DVB-S2 without adaquate quality control. Thousands were left without service.
From this point of view Freesat is very dependent on Sky. Infact without Sky Freesat would never have happened it would just be too expensive to setup an independent service.
link to this comment |
@chrisw
The BBC has to pay Arqiva for the distribution and transmission of the terestrial channels why shouldn't they pay Sky for EPG transmission.
You say "the BBC is by far the best quality broadcast organisation in the World". I totally disagree as the BBC has been deteriating over the last few years. The BBC schedule is now largely repeats. The News reporting is now at the lowest standard I have ever seen it. Quality sport is almost non existant except for what is obtained on the cheap by the protected right laws. Very little original drama now as well. As for adverts I record most programs and just skip the adverts.
The new licence fee arrangment will mean that the Licence fee will be paid for by the licence fee.
link to this comment |
Sunday 21 August 2011 8:19PM
Sorry Peter I did not mean this to become a discusion about 3D. My original point was that some of the extra space on freeview would be allocated to 3D.
Of course the distinction between so called "Free" television and pay TV is rather achademic. For BBC we have to pay a yearly fee and with ITV we pay with higher prices in the shops. As Bevin once said if you want a free National Health Service you have to pay for it.
Steve. Companies have to be very carefull about publishing sales figures as they could be construde as miss leading share holders which is a very serious offence.