ITV4
 

Here we go again, it have been said that ITV have won the new slot on
Freeview along with channel 4.

I can see ITV4 is going to be as bad as ITV 1,2 and 3 and Ch4 is
thinking about a games channel.
What a waste, these two slots could have been used for something better.
Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.

Just typical, money talks.

"Ad" wrote in message
...
Here we go again, it have been said that

"it have been said"!!

ITV have

'has' not 'have'

won the new slot on
Freeview along with channel 4.

I can see ITV4 is going to be as bad as ITV 1,2 and 3 and Ch4 is
thinking about a games channel.
What a waste, these two slots could have been used for something better.
Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.

Just typical, money talks.

So long as it talks accurately, I do not mind.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Ad wrote:
Here we go again, it have been said that ITV have won the new slot on
Freeview along with channel 4.

I can see ITV4 is going to be as bad as ITV 1,2 and 3 and Ch4 is
thinking about a games channel.
What a waste, these two slots could have been used for something better.
Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.

Just typical, money talks.

ITV3 is dire do I don't expect ITV4 will be worth watching, and we
certainly don't need a gaming channel. Not sure what they planned to do,
but I would have thought NBC or Disney could have come up with something
better. I'm surprised they didn't have the money to win it.

"Ben" wrote...
Ad wrote:
Here we go again, it have been said that ITV have won the new slot
on Freeview along with channel 4.

I can see ITV4 is going to be as bad as ITV 1,2 and 3 and Ch4 is
thinking about a games channel.
What a waste, these two slots could have been used for something
better. Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.

Just typical, money talks.

ITV3 is dire [...]

No it bloody isn't -- it carries welcome repeats of good programmes,
like Jeeves & Wooster, Foyle's War, and I could go on. It's ITV2 which
is the Pure ****e Channel.

Matti

ITV3 is dire [...]

No it bloody isn't -- it carries welcome repeats of good programmes,
like Jeeves & Wooster, Foyle's War, and I could go on. It's ITV2 which
is the Pure ****e Channel.

Matti


I agree absolutely with the above but it depends on your age and ITV3 is not
intended for the the little pop twinkies but the grey and wealthy oldies.

"John Porcella" wrote in message
...

"Ad" wrote in message
...
Here we go again, it have been said that

"it have been said"!!

ITV have

'has' not 'have'

won the new slot on
Freeview along with channel 4.

I can see ITV4 is going to be as bad as ITV 1,2 and 3 and Ch4 is
thinking about a games channel.
What a waste, these two slots could have been used for something better.
Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.

Just typical, money talks.

So long as it talks accurately, I do not mind.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella



Picky little sh*t aren't you, always looking out for grammar errors, ever
thought of getting a life, or actually giving a sensible response to the
OP's message.

In message , Ad
wrote


Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.

Have ABC1 actual got more than six episodes of any one program?

As an occasional viewer of ABC1, every time I now switch to this
channel they are showing something I've already seen. I wonder how
people managed when there were only one repeat of a program per week?

--
Alan

I agree absolutely with the above but it depends on your age and ITV3 is
not intended for the the little pop twinkies but the grey and wealthy
oldies.





The repeats of Chicago Hope and The Practice make the channel worth while
for me. I don't think I've ever watched anything on ITV2 for more than a
couple of minutes.

H

Ad said the following on 2005-03-26 11:25:
Here we go again, it have been said that ITV have won the new slot on
Freeview along with channel 4.

I can see ITV4 is going to be as bad as ITV 1,2 and 3 and Ch4 is
thinking about a games channel.
What a waste, these two slots could have been used for something better.
Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.

Just typical, money talks.

Channel 4 now have two slots (possibly 3 if they squeeze four slots onto
there half of multiplex 2 like ITV have done)

From Digital Spy :-

Option 1: More4
One of the two slots will definitely be used for More 4, a new factual
station launching in October. The channel, which has a budget of £30
million, will target the over-35s with a programme lineup including
original documentaries, drama "events" and a daily news bulletin.

Option 2: E4
The broadcaster recently outlined its intent to take flagship
entertainment station E4 free-to-air as part of a "long term strategy."
Indications have suggested that the move could occur before the end of
2005, however doing so would incur a penalty from Sky, who have an
agreement to carry E4 as a pay channel until 2008.

Option 3: Gaming channel
C4 has been in discussions with German broadcaster 9 Live about
launching a joint venture gaming channel following a successful
two-month trial on E4 last year. The idea is particularly favoured as an
alternative route of bringing in revenues.

Option 4: Movie channel
According to Broadcast, a newer idea is to launch a joint venture movie
channel with the BBC. A BBC spokesman told DS that the corporation had
"no comment" to make on the "speculation."


Lets play, guess what channel 4 will do :-

Multiplex 2 Slot 1 : Channel4
Multiplex 2 Slot 2 : More 4
Multiplex 2 Slot 3 : E4
Multiplex 2 Slot 4 : [TopUpTV] Film Four / UK Food / Bloomberg

Multiplex D : Movie Channel, with games channel during downtime

"leon" wrote in message
...
Picky little sh*t aren't you, always looking out for grammar errors, ever
thought of getting a life, or actually giving a sensible response to the
OP's message.

Shouldn't that be 'grammatical errors' ...?

John Porcella wrote:


"it have been said"!!

ITV have

'has' not 'have'

won the new slot on

Freeview along with channel 4.

I can see ITV4 is going to be as bad as ITV 1,2 and 3 and Ch4 is
thinking about a games channel.
What a waste, these two slots could have been used for something better.
Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.

Just typical, money talks.


So long as it talks accurately, I do not mind.



For goodness sake, stop picking people up on their grammar or spelling,

Matti Lamprhey wrote:


No it bloody isn't -- it carries welcome repeats of good programmes,
like Jeeves & Wooster, Foyle's War, and I could go on. It's ITV2 which
is the Pure ****e Channel.


This is the problem, repeats, all repeats and ITV4 will be the same.

"Nick" wrote in message
...

"leon" wrote in message
...
Picky little sh*t aren't you, always looking out for grammar errors, ever
thought of getting a life, or actually giving a sensible response to the
OP's message.

Shouldn't that be 'grammatical errors' ...?


Put that in to bring out more anal retentives, like you ! ?

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:51:37 GMT, Kev wrote:



| Channel 4 now have two slots (possibly 3 if they squeeze four slots onto
| there half of multiplex 2 like ITV have done)
|
| From Digital Spy :-
|
| Option 1: More4
| One of the two slots will definitely be used for More 4, a new factual
| station launching in October. The channel, which has a budget of £30
| million, will target the over-35s with a programme lineup including
| original documentaries, drama "events" and a daily news bulletin.

I'll say my digital prayers for that one.


--
Dave F

"diggler 943" wrote in message
...

ITV3 is dire [...]

No it bloody isn't -- it carries welcome repeats of good programmes,
like Jeeves & Wooster, Foyle's War, and I could go on. It's ITV2 which
is the Pure ****e Channel.

Matti


I agree absolutely with the above but it depends on your age and ITV3 is
not intended for the the little pop twinkies but the grey and wealthy
oldies.



Well, I'm youngish and well-to-do and I enjoy it too. Beats the hell out of
ITV1 and ITV2.

Ad wrote:


This is the problem, repeats, all repeats and ITV4 will be the same.

I think you may be missing the whole point of this multi channel
broadcasting thing ;-)

(there is not enough new content to fill the existing analogue channels,
so what did you expect to get on all the extras, the potters wheel again?)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave Fawthrop said the following on 2005-03-26 14:41:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:51:37 GMT, Kev wrote:



| Channel 4 now have two slots (possibly 3 if they squeeze four slots onto
| there half of multiplex 2 like ITV have done)
|
| From Digital Spy :-
|
| Option 1: More4
| One of the two slots will definitely be used for More 4, a new factual
| station launching in October. The channel, which has a budget of £30
| million, will target the over-35s with a programme lineup including
| original documentaries, drama "events" and a daily news bulletin.

I'll say my digital prayers for that one.


We're getting that one in October for certain....

Selflishly i hope it goes onto Multiplex C then i stand a good chance of
getting it at my new place (in group for Nottingham, just out of group
for Waltham, unlike Multiplex 2 which is right at the wrong end of the
band in both cases!)

Kev

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:25:31 +0000, Ad
wrote:

Here we go again, it have been said that ITV have won the new slot on
Freeview along with channel 4.

I can see ITV4 is going to be as bad as ITV 1,2 and 3 and Ch4 is
thinking about a games channel.
What a waste, these two slots could have been used for something better.
Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.

Just typical, money talks.

I think I would prefer the test card.

Scott

"Kev" wrote in message
...

Multiplex D : Movie Channel, with games channel during downtime

Why would a movie channel have a downtime? Aren't there enough movies
around?

--
Max Demian

"Nick" wrote in message
...

"leon" wrote in message
...
Picky little sh*t aren't you, always looking out for grammar errors,
ever
thought of getting a life, or actually giving a sensible response to the
OP's message.

Why do you think that my response was not sensible?


Shouldn't that be 'grammatical errors' ...?

"Should that not be 'grammatical errors'?" is better.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

For goodness sake, stop picking people up on their grammar or spelling,

As for goodness, I am doing you a good turn by educating you and not
expecting either payment or thanks.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

For goodness sake, stop picking people up on their grammar or spelling,

Why? You were happy to pick holes in the content of a TV station that does
not yet broadcast! Pot and kettle come very much to mind!


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

"John Porcella" wrote in message
...

For goodness sake, stop picking people up on their grammar or spelling,

As for goodness, I am doing you a good turn by educating you and not
expecting either payment or thanks.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella


You really are a sad little troll, and how deluded to think that you are
educating people with your pedantic remarks. What gives you the right to
criticise, are you the official upholder of the english language, If you
really want to do a good turn keep your trite comments to yourself.

"John Porcella" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
...

"leon" wrote in message
...
Picky little sh*t aren't you, always looking out for grammar errors,
ever
thought of getting a life, or actually giving a sensible response to
the
OP's message.

Why do you think that my response was not sensible?


It wasn't sensible because the mistake the OP made was almost certainly a
typo rather than an educational error. It wasn't sensible because on Usenet
it's considered acceptable to write in the vernacular, with standards
equivalent to a conversation rather than a letter.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella



Why do you add a signature after the message has ended?

snipped

It wasn't sensible because the mistake the OP made was almost certainly a
typo rather than an educational error. It wasn't sensible because on
Usenet it's considered acceptable to write in the vernacular, with
standards equivalent to a conversation rather than a letter.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella



Why do you add a signature after the message has ended?


An oldie but a goodie below

From: Buggy

Subject: Question: How many Newsgroup members does it take to change a light
bulb?

Date: 07 February 2001 19:05



Q: How many Newsgroup members does it take to change a light bulb?

A: 1,331:

1 to change the light bulb and to post to the newsgroup that the light bulb

has been changed.

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light

bulb could have been changed differently.

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs.

53 to flame the spell checkers.

156 to write to the newsgroup complaining about the light bulb discussion

and its inappropriateness to this newsgroup.

41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames.

109 to post that the newsgroup is not about light bulbs and to please take

this posting to alt.lite.bulb

203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and

alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped.

111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we all use light bulbs

and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list.

306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy

the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this

technique, and what brands are faulty.

27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected

URLs.

3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this

list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list.

33 to merge all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and

footers, and then add "Me Too."

12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot

handle the light bulb controversy.

19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three."

4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ.

1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup.

47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it

here.

143 votes for alt.lite.bulb.

Max Demian said the following on 2005-03-26 17:28:
"Kev" wrote in message
...


Multiplex D : Movie Channel, with games channel during downtime


Why would a movie channel have a downtime? Aren't there enough movies
around?

For some reason i just assumed it would be films that Channel 4 have
made and similer, which usually can only be shown after the watershed!

If they do launch that i can't see the range being much larger than
Channel 4 Films and ones the BBC have invested in, for a while anyway.

"Kev" wrote in message
...
Max Demian said the following on 2005-03-26 17:28:
"Kev" wrote in message
...

Multiplex D : Movie Channel, with games channel during downtime

Why would a movie channel have a downtime? Aren't there enough movies
around?

For some reason i just assumed it would be films that Channel 4 have made
and similer, which usually can only be shown after the watershed!

If they do launch that i can't see the range being much larger than
Channel 4 Films and ones the BBC have invested in, for a while anyway.

Why? There must be thousands of old 'family' films that can be shown for
next to nothing.

--
Max Demian

"leon" wrote in message
...

"John Porcella" wrote in message
...

For goodness sake, stop picking people up on their grammar or spelling,

As for goodness, I am doing you a good turn by educating you and not
expecting either payment or thanks.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella


You really are a sad little troll, and how deluded to think that you are
educating people with your pedantic remarks.

Thank you! Being called a pedant indicates that you accept that I am not
wrong.

What gives you the right to
criticise,

That is easy to answer. I was simply responding in kind! The OP was
criticising the broadcast content of 'ITV4' even though it has not yet
broadcast a single thing. Hence, if he is entitled to criticise, then so am
I of him. Beams and motes come to mind.



are you the official upholder of the english language,

We all are. By the way, it is 'English'.

If you
really want to do a good turn keep your trite comments to yourself.

I could respond with your last comment.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

"John Porcella" wrote in message
...

For goodness sake, stop picking people up on their grammar or spelling,

As for goodness, I am doing you a good turn by educating you and not
expecting either payment or thanks.


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella


John,

Keep up the good work.

Ben wrote:


ITV3 is dire do I don't expect ITV4 will be worth watching, and we

I have not watched ITV3, but I have seen the T.v listings and that was
enough.

certainly don't need a gaming channel. Not sure what they planned to do,

No, we certainly do not.


but I would have thought NBC or Disney could have come up with something
better. I'm surprised they didn't have the money to win it.

Yes, I thought they could have put more money in.

leon wrote:




Picky little sh*t aren't you, always looking out for grammar errors, ever
thought of getting a life, or actually giving a sensible response to the
OP's message.



He is just a snob or thinks he is. The type of person who thinks he is
better than everyone else.

But thanks anyway.

Alan wrote:
In message , Ad
wrote


Even expanding ABC1 would have been a better bet.


Have ABC1 actual got more than six episodes of any one program?


I have got no idea, I only watched ABC1 a couple of times, since I am at
work when it is on and to be honest, it is not my sort of channel.

As an occasional viewer of ABC1, every time I now switch to this
channel they are showing something I've already seen. I wonder how
people managed when there were only one repeat of a program per week?


I got no idea. But I still think it would have been a better bet, than
having a channel on that will more or less repeat ITV2 and 3.

If ITV 4 is a cut down Men and Motors, then it will not be worth
watching. ITV have gone downhill in the last couple of years and they
certainly got worse since they got involved with digital T.V, but then,
so have BBC.

Kev wrote:



Channel 4 now have two slots (possibly 3 if they squeeze four slots onto
there half of multiplex 2 like ITV have done)

From Digital Spy :-

Option 1: More4
One of the two slots will definitely be used for More 4, a new factual
station launching in October. The channel, which has a budget of £30
million, will target the over-35s with a programme lineup including
original documentaries, drama "events" and a daily news bulletin.

Original documentaries? this I will have to see. If it is that good,
then I may give up my sky, since that is the only thing I may keep sky
for after the the contract. I like documentaries.



Option 2: E4
The broadcaster recently outlined its intent to take flagship
entertainment station E4 free-to-air as part of a "long term strategy."
Indications have suggested that the move could occur before the end of
2005, however doing so would incur a penalty from Sky, who have an
agreement to carry E4 as a pay channel until 2008.


E4 is rubbish most of the time, most of the programs on E4 is
broadcasted on Ch4 a few weeks after.

Option 3: Gaming channel
C4 has been in discussions with German broadcaster 9 Live about
launching a joint venture gaming channel following a successful
two-month trial on E4 last year. The idea is particularly favoured as an
alternative route of bringing in revenues.


That is not needed and it will only allow more people to bet.


Option 4: Movie channel
According to Broadcast, a newer idea is to launch a joint venture movie
channel with the BBC. A BBC spokesman told DS that the corporation had
"no comment" to make on the "speculation."


That would be nice, but I doubt it will happen. A nice movie channel
would really help digital T.V.


Lets play, guess what channel 4 will do :-

Multiplex 2 Slot 1 : Channel4
Multiplex 2 Slot 2 : More 4
Multiplex 2 Slot 3 : E4
Multiplex 2 Slot 4 : [TopUpTV] Film Four / UK Food / Bloomberg

Multiplex D : Movie Channel, with games channel during downtime


What ever they do, I doubt the quality will be any good. Once again too
much is being pushed into the limited space and already the picture
quality is way below what it could be.

The last thing Digital terrestrial needs is a games channel.

John Rumm wrote:


I think you may be missing the whole point of this multi channel
broadcasting thing ;-)


(there is not enough new content to fill the existing analogue channels,

Then we may as well stay with the five channels then and kick this
digital lot back to where it came from.

so what did you expect to get on all the extras, the potters wheel again?)


I expected to get something a bit better, after all, if we got to fork
out for a digital box, we should get something for our money.

Kev wrote:



We're getting that one in October for certain....

Selflishly i hope it goes onto Multiplex C then i stand a good chance of
getting it at my new place (in group for Nottingham, just out of group
for Waltham, unlike Multiplex 2 which is right at the wrong end of the
band in both cases!)


You can bet where ever it goes, the channels will be so highly
compressed that the quality will be not much better than VHS.

Scott wrote:



I think I would prefer the test card.


Than what?

I am not a fan of ABC1, but it got to be better than another ITV channel

John Porcella wrote:
For goodness sake, stop picking people up on their grammar or spelling,


As for goodness, I am doing you a good turn by educating you and not
expecting either payment or thanks.



********

John Porcella wrote:
For goodness sake, stop picking people up on their grammar or spelling,


Why? You were happy to pick holes in the content of a TV station that does
not yet broadcast! Pot and kettle come very much to mind!



I am picking holes in ITV full stop, I am not picking holes in any one
person.

Considering that ITV have already got three stations on DTTV and none of
them are much to speak off, why do you think ITV4 is going to be any
better?
People picked holes in other channels before they was launched, like
ABC1 and FTN and they was right then.

the problem here is that more and more channels are being placed onto a
system that can not cope, The picture and sound quality of the channels
are getting worse, everytime a new channel is added.

Since Top up crap started to broadcast, I can not even watch Ch5. the
only way to watch Ch5 is either using the Sky box or analogue. That is
not an improvement.

John Porcella wrote:
For goodness sake, stop picking people up on their grammar or spelling,


As for goodness, I am doing you a good turn by educating you and not
expecting either payment or thanks.

Should that not be "payment or gratitude"?

Kev wrote:

Option 2: E4
The broadcaster recently outlined its intent to take flagship
entertainment station E4 free-to-air as part of a "long term strategy."
Indications have suggested that the move could occur before the end of
2005, however doing so would incur a penalty from Sky, who have an
agreement to carry E4 as a pay channel until 2008.

Wonder why they would bother. All the watchable progs on E4 seem to
appear on Channel 4 the following week anyway.