|
|
The BBC Regions and those abbreviations
BBC Regions and abbreviations on Sky Digital platform, there are some
corkers, the best one has to be BBC 1 EYks&L, no wonder they have left some of the DOGs on for now (BBC say they will remove them after "testing") http://www.vowles-home.demon.co.uk/S...ns.htm#regions Chris |
What DOGS??????????
Nothing is visible on any of the BBC 1 regions. "Chris Vowles" wrote in message ... BBC Regions and abbreviations on Sky Digital platform, there are some corkers, the best one has to be BBC 1 EYks&L, no wonder they have left some of the DOGs on for now (BBC say they will remove them after "testing") http://www.vowles-home.demon.co.uk/S...ns.htm#regions Chris |
In article , Debbie wrote:
What DOGS?????????? Nothing is visible on any of the BBC 1 regions. The DOGs have been coming and going while the BBC were testing (and presumably checking) the regionalization. Dave -- Email: MSN Messenger: |
"Debbie" wrote in message ... What DOGS?????????? Nothing is visible on any of the BBC 1 regions. "Chris Vowles" wrote in message ... BBC Regions and abbreviations on Sky Digital platform, there are some corkers, the best one has to be BBC 1 EYks&L, no wonder they have left some of the DOGs on for now (BBC say they will remove them after "testing") http://www.vowles-home.demon.co.uk/S...ns.htm#regions Chris Excellent. |
|
"Ant" wrote in message ... On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:14:28 +0000 (UTC), (David Marshall) wrote: The DOGs have been coming and going while the BBC were testing (and presumably checking) the regionalization. They really should leave them on all the time, otherwise it's going to be very confusing for people with all those different versions in the EPG, people could end up watching the wrong thing and not realise. Someone should really email the BBC and make this point. It's for the good of the viewers, after all. Going by the same logic: - On all toilets, signs should be placed stating "Insert waste products here". - All undergarments should have labels stating "front bottom and back bottom". - All shoes should come with labels stating left and right for each foot. I know in Sky-land, they view their suckers / customers with complete contempt and as the lowest form of intelligent life, but there is no reason for the rest of the world to stoop to this level of condescension. |
"ThePunisher" wrote in message ... Walt Davidson wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:17:01 +0000 (UTC), "NO LOGO" wrote: I know in Sky-land, they view their suckers / customers with complete contempt and as the lowest form of intelligent life, but there is no reason for the rest of the world to stoop to this level of condescension. As I have stated before, I think the *real* reason that you dislike DOGs is that it spoils the pirate copies of movies that you are trying to make. Tough titties. Ah, I see the troll has arrived. -- ThePunisher Yep. I drive a 2.9 Litre Granada, and from my council flat, I make £1000 a day selling pirate copies of BBC Regional News bulletins. Not. |
Walt Davidson wrote:
|| On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:17:01 +0000 (UTC), "NO LOGO" || wrote: || ||| I know in Sky-land, they view their suckers / customers with complete ||| contempt and as the lowest form of intelligent life, but there is no reason ||| for the rest of the world to stoop to this level of condescension. || || As I have stated before, I think the *real* reason that you dislike || DOGs is that it spoils the pirate copies of movies that you are trying || to make. || || Tough titties. imho what a pile of bollox! I like to have my viewing not disturbed by onscreen junk. I watch programs for the program content, not to have them tell me i'm watching BBCWest......! Why have onscreen DOGS when the EPG quite clearly tells you what channel you're on when you goto it! knobhead lol |
Just confirming another writer in this thread, I waited with anticipation at
6-30 this evening at Hull to see whether I would get EYks&L which we have on analogue, but we got the Leeds edition and an invitation to enter 947 for our local version. This is probably a better option, as EYks&L on analogue only covers the coastal part of East Yorkshire, most of Lincolnshire, and North Norfolk. We get news items for Sheffield too, so quite a few people must watch EYks&L there as well. I noticed that as Yorkshire is on 101, 946 is shown as unavailable. Is that true for other areas? "Chris Vowles" wrote in message ... BBC Regions and abbreviations on Sky Digital platform, there are some corkers, the best one has to be BBC 1 EYks&L, no wonder they have left some of the DOGs on for now (BBC say they will remove them after "testing") http://www.vowles-home.demon.co.uk/S...ns.htm#regions Chris |
I noticed that as Yorkshire is on 101, 946 is shown as unavailable. Is
that true for other areas? That's correct. If a region is available on 101, it will not be available on it's 9xx number. In effect, it's been moved rather than copied. |
"Chris Vowles" wrote in message ... BBC Regions and abbreviations on Sky Digital platform, there are some corkers, the best one has to be BBC 1 EYks&L, no wonder they have left some of the DOGs on for now (BBC say they will remove them after "testing") http://www.vowles-home.demon.co.uk/S...ns.htm#regions I can work out that you are talking about some kind of on-screen display, but what does DOGS stand for? Philip |
"ThePunisher" wrote in message ...
Walt Davidson wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:17:01 +0000 (UTC), "NO LOGO" wrote: I know in Sky-land, they view their suckers / customers with complete contempt and as the lowest form of intelligent life, but there is no reason for the rest of the world to stoop to this level of condescension. As I have stated before, I think the *real* reason that you dislike DOGs is that it spoils the pirate copies of movies that you are trying to make. You got a point there, even if you don't realize it. In my opinion a program not worth recording is also not worth watching in the first place (not counting news and live sport) For BBC programming though the pirate argument doesn't really count: |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:41:15 +0200, "Philip Crookes"
wrote: "Chris Vowles" wrote in message ... BBC Regions and abbreviations on Sky Digital platform, there are some corkers, the best one has to be BBC 1 EYks&L, no wonder they have left some of the DOGs on for now (BBC say they will remove them after "testing") http://www.vowles-home.demon.co.uk/S...ns.htm#regions I can work out that you are talking about some kind of on-screen display, but what does DOGS stand for? Digitally originated graphics (some say digitally onscreen graphics) Chris |
All I want on my screen is the picture.No Dogs,clocks,red dots, banners or
other graffiti.When I see Tony Blair on screen I don't need a red banner below saying "Tony Blair". If I press the remote it tells me what channel I'm on,I don't need to be reminded all the time. |
|
"Chris Vowles" wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:21:56 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote: In article , "artnada" wrote: Why have onscreen DOGS when the EPG quite clearly tells you Why do you assume that everyone watching BBC channels in the future will use a $ky box? They don't have to any more. Doesn't every Digital Satellite Box show the Channel ID, my Humax does Chris I press the remote on my Humax and up comes the ID. British TV is dogged by Dogs. |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:55:55 +0100, "austin500"
wrote: I press the remote on my Humax and up comes the ID. Indeed that should be enought for anyone, why does it matter if you are watching a show on BBC, ITV, Ch4, five, Sky etc etc, I watch television programmes not television channels in addition a channel number is displayed on almost every digital sat receiver and even names in some cases (even my Analogue MSS300 does it, although it is a manual process to set the names up) British TV is dogged by Dogs. It is, and many other countries are even worse offenders, channels such as the WB affiliates in the states have massive dogs about an eighth of the screen, and as for adverts, they seem to happen even more than Sky1 Chris |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:34:40 +0100, Chris Vowles
wrote: in addition a channel number is displayed on almost every digital sat receiver and even names in some cases (even my Analogue MSS300 does it, although it is a manual process to set the names up) So you need a DOG to really confirm what channel you are on as you might have manually set up the wrong name:-) -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
"NO LOGO" wrote in message ... I did look this up 2 years ago, and I found the MPEG2 protocols used for streaming video actually include description fields for: the name of channel the title of programme classification data (such as 15, 18) It is in the Internationally ratified protocol definitions used for transmission to include "channel identification". I doubt there is a Digital Television receiver on the market today, that can not extract this data. Channel description is intrinsic and inherent to digital transmission. A major broadcaster like the BBC and yes Sky One, should not need a DOG for "identification" of what are already the most popular channels within their respective genres. When Sky One became dogged on 01/10/1996, it was already the most popular cable / satellite channel in the UK. I can understand DOGs on shopping channels who might be leasing transmission space, however nobody gives a **** about shopping channels. The objections to DOGs, are that they disrupt a visual media, and some viewers find this wholly inappropriate within their viewing choices. I do not watch channels with DOGs, and am very happy with about 7 channels thank you. DOGs are for marketing and branding, and nothing else. Not for viewers. Not for the public. Not for Copyright control (at least within this country). There are numerous statements to this effect direct from Directors of broadcasters at http://logofreetv.org/. BBC THREE and BBC FOUR have DOGs because the BBC Executive thinks they need this "branding" to deface distinctive public service programmes such as "Alistair Cooke's America" or "Jacob Bronowski's Ascent of Man". However, not one member of the BBC Executive would dare to back up their argument with research, evidence, facts, or substantiation. As for Sky, unsubscribe if you don't like it. You are "free" to make that "choice". But apart from DOGS all the other graffiti on the screen is distracting and annoying. |
Thanks for the link to dvdfab - looks usefull, will give it a try out
"Nick Webster" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Nick Webster" wrote in message ... In article , says... How do you make a perfect copy of a dual layered DVD movie - on 2 or more discs? 4.3Gig is the (current) max on a DVD+/-R Use a program (http://www.dvdfab.com/) that splits it on to 2 disks. Slightly more hassle, as you have to change disks during the movie, but still the same quality as the original. I do this all the time for my kids, and keep the originals in a safe place. Not a perfect copy but an adequate one :-) Whoosh ;) I completely missed the point of your original post didn't I. I try and engage brain now :) Regards. -- Nick Webster |
In article ,
lid says... In article , says... How do you make a perfect copy of a dual layered DVD movie - on 2 or more discs? 4.3Gig is the (current) max on a DVD+/-R Use a program (http://www.dvdfab.com/) that splits it on to 2 disks. Slightly more hassle, as you have to change disks during the movie, but still the same quality as the original. I do this all the time for my kids, and keep the originals in a safe place. " This page is temporary not available. Please try again in some days !" -- Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk /* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor) /* 935 DVDs, 259 games, 33 videos, 67 cinema films, 69 CDs, laserdiscs & news /* tomb raider angel of darkness, hulk, 24, speed kings, hitcher, phone booth "Organiser Eric Amy hit out today after just four people showed up for a public meeting to fight apathy in Dorchester" - Dorset Evening Echo |
|
On 31/7/03 10:43 pm, in article , "Ant"
wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:21:56 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote: Why have onscreen DOGS when the EPG quite clearly tells you Why do you assume that everyone watching BBC channels in the future will use a $ky box? They don't have to any more. That's a very good point - now that the BBC is going to be available on all kinds of equipment where this functionality cannot be guaranteed, it strengthens the case for some form of universally compatible on-screen identification of what people are watching. Yep - except that the BBC is FTA in the DVB-S standard - which includes Station ID and Now/Next channel info as part of the basic standard. The Sky EPG is in addition, rather than as a replacement to this, so the BBC Channel Ids as displayed on Sky should also appear on FTA receivers. So still no real requirement for a permanent DOG on-screen - and the Beeb are not burning them in permanently thankfully. Steve |
In message , Walt Davidson
writes ROTFL!! You seem to do little else but watch channels with DOGs ... simply to check, minute by minute, whether the DOGs are still there! It's an obsession! Of course they are obsessed. They have sad empty lives that they fill with watching TV channels to complain about and then cluttering up perfectly good newsgroups with whines about their sad little obsession. I fully support TV channels having identification onscreen. Always have. Always will. Happily the broadcasters support my point of view. :) -- James Masterton - www.masterton.co.uk |
|
Ant wrote in uk.media.tv.sky on Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:43:59 GMT:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:14:29 GMT, (QrizB) wrote: There already is a universally-compatible wotsit included in the DVB data. But since recievers cannot be relied upon to present this information to the user, it remains that an embedded picture identifier is the only truly universal solution. No, the truly universal solution is for people who want to see the channel name, to buy something that displays the channel name. It's like saying you can't guarantee teletext is available on all TVs, thus all TV programs should have teletext superimposed on them. -- David Taylor To reply via e-mail: replace [email protected] with @yadt.co. "The future just ain't what it used to be." |
Peter Pratten wrote in uk.media.tv.sky on Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:32:27 +0100:
In uk.tech.digital-tv, rnet writes In article , "artnada" wrote: Why have onscreen DOGS when the EPG quite clearly tells you Why do you assume that everyone watching BBC channels in the future will use a $ky box? Or even satellite, or even a live broadcast? They may be watching a recording and want to know which version had been recorded. The recording won't show this. Hm, they might be watching a recording and want to know when it was broadcast. Better make sure to put the date and time along with channel name and logo on screen at all times. Hmm, you'll need the program name too. If they're watching a recording they might not be able to get subtitles, so we'd better put them on too. Seriously, that's a silly argument for covering up the program with a DOG. Sure, put a channel/program ident before the program, or in between advert breaks, but not on-screen 24/7. -- David Taylor To reply via e-mail: replace [email protected] with @yadt.co. "The future just ain't what it used to be." |
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 06:15:10 GMT, Jomtien wrote:
But since recievers cannot be relied upon to present this information to the user, Name one that doesn't. If they have "DVB" on the front they will support this. Assuming that the information is broadcast in the first place, of course. I'll give you a real-world example. Last night I watched a programme on my FTA reciever. It did not announce what it was, it did not announce the channel. There was no on-screen identifier, no EPG data of any kind, and the channel itself was called something ridiculous like "SERVICE 0". Situations like these where an on-screen logo is downright essential, if you ask me.. |
Peter Pratten wrote:
In uk.tech.digital-tv, rnet writes In article , "artnada" wrote: Why have onscreen DOGS when the EPG quite clearly tells you Why do you assume that everyone watching BBC channels in the future will use a $ky box? Or even satellite, or even a live broadcast? They may be watching a recording and want to know which version had been recorded. The recording won't show this. That's why most of us keep a pen in the house somewhere. It's handy for writing little notes. Sorry, but these excuses for DOGs are just pathetic. Get a grip. Luke -- Spammers! It is in your interest to read http://w3.shrimper.org.uk/ before posting to this address. |
|
Ant wrote:
The BBCi (and Sky Active etc.) feeds aren't intended to be viewed outside of the interactive platform. Aren't they? No, they aren't. But the BBC says I can watch their services without using a Sky box now. You can. You can even watch the interactive services without a Sky box, though you can't expect them to work properly. I quite agree that the BBC don't make it very clear that the interactive services are platform dependent at the moment. If something is broadcast, I think I'm entitled to watch it. You are. Unless it's a VideoGuard encrypted signal or Sky type interactive service in which case you would need to use a Sky box. They can't have it both ways - the BBC can't make a big deal of how they're available on all recievers and the next minute say "Oh, well, you can't get this, or you shouldn't be watching that, because you should have a Sky box". You need only blame Sky for not respecting recognised standards for interactive motors. If the Sky motor was vanilla OpenTV then the BBCi services would work on any OpenTV box, as would the Sky ones (but they don't). -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/guiv How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/ BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
Ant wrote in uk.media.tv.sky on Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:12:01 GMT:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:53:11 GMT, Jomtien wrote: The BBCi (and Sky Active etc.) feeds aren't intended to be viewed outside of the interactive platform. Aren't they? But the BBC says I can watch their services without using a Sky box now. If something is broadcast, I think I'm entitled to watch it. They can't have it both ways - the BBC can't make a big deal of how they're available on all recievers and the next minute say "Oh, well, you can't get this, or you shouldn't be watching that, because you should have a Sky box". They should probably give it a better name than 'SERVICE 0', rather than slapping DOGs on it. -- David Taylor To reply via e-mail: replace [email protected] with @yadt.co. "The future just ain't what it used to be." |
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 06:20:32 GMT, Jomtien wrote:
On the contrary, OpenTV is a standard that Sky could have used without modifications. They chose to make their implementation of it just different enough to be incompatible with all others. They did this for exactly the same reasons that they have for not releasing VideoGuard CAMs: to ensure that they retain the monopoly on hardware provision. Yawn! OpenTV is, despite the name, as proprietary a system as any other. How many other satellite recievers are there running OpenTV, or indeed any other such system? A small number compared to the overall glut of European FTA receivers which don't bother themselves with those (generally) country-specific features at all. |
Ant wrote:
On the contrary, OpenTV is a standard that Sky could have used without modifications. They chose to make their implementation of it just different enough to be incompatible with all others. They did this for exactly the same reasons that they have for not releasing VideoGuard CAMs: to ensure that they retain the monopoly on hardware provision. Yawn! OpenTV is, despite the name, as proprietary a system as any other. So? It is still a standard and could have been left as such. How many other satellite recievers are there running OpenTV, or indeed any other such system? A small number compared to the overall glut of European FTA receivers which don't bother themselves with those (generally) country-specific features at all. Most receivers issued by subscription channels have some sort of interactive engine in them. FTA receivers don't bother with these engines for the simple reason that there are several different ones and they generally require a card to work properly. And FTA receivers don't have card slots and CAMs. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/guiv How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/ BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 06:30:20 GMT, Jomtien wrote:
So? It is still a standard and could have been left as such. I don't understand why you're so opposed to progress. I mean, they won't be changing things for the fun of it, it's obviously new features and benefits that have been added, and that means a better experience for the people using the services. Why should that be compromised to remain 'compatible' with something else which nobody uses? Who cares? When PAL was first invented each country made their own adjustments to it so that it best suited them, and it would have been crazy not to. Most receivers issued by subscription channels have some sort of interactive engine in them. Sure, but how many satellite enthusiasts who don't want a Sky box are going to buy a reciever intended for a different subscription platform elsewhere in the world? If you don't want to use a Sky box to watch FTA channels then why on earth would you want to use a Canal Satelite one? It's not going to happen - they're going to get an FTA box or a straightforward CAM-based box. |
Ant wrote:
I'm not. But taking a standard and modifying it just enough to make it non-standard is not any definition of progress that I know. Perhaps not, but as long as it's done for a decent enough reason then who cares? You obviously know more about OpenTV than I do so I don't know if the "non-standard" differences are anywhere critical, but as I say, at the end of the day does it REALLY matter? The difference is just enough to make the services run on a Sky box but not on a non-Sky box. This is important to anyone with a non-Sky box. I suspect that any modifications made were done primarily if not solely in order to ensure that Sky interactive services would only function on a Sky digibox. I think if they wanted to do that there would be much easier and more effective ways of doing it. Really? How? I can't see any reason why they would be bothered about it. Can you even buy a non-Sky OpenTV reciever in Europe? Is there one? Other broadcasters use the OpenTV motor and there are boxes for sale that run these services, yes. They won't run the Sky services though. If they did there would obviously be much more demand for the boxes. Who cares? I care. Yes, but for what reason? Because you genuinely believe it makes life harder and poorer for the consumer, or just because it gives you yet another chance to have a pop at Sky over some mindless technical irrelevance that means nothing to anyone? Simply because the non-standard nature of the interactive motor in the Sky box means that those who can now choose to buy a non-Sky digibox or PVR for viewing the BBC can't use the same box for viewing the BBCi services. The Sky digibox complies with the DVB standard for broadcasting (because it is a legal requirement) but has a non-standard interactive motor (probably because there are no legal requirements about this). This is a pain. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/guiv How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/ BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com