BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:04:34 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote:

Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as
many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for
subscription cards:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv

Interesting link ...

"""Appearing before the public accounts committee for the first time
earlier this week, Caroline Thomson, the director of policy and legal
at the BBC, confirmed to MPs that while it costs £2 per licence fee
payer a year to transmit an analogue signal and £3 a year to broadcast
on digital satellite, licence fee payers shell out £7 a year for
Freeview customers."""

So the worst, most over-compressed, most interference-prone, of the
platforms is also the more than twice as expensive as the next most
costly? Mmmmm.

I wonder what figure includes? Producing the signal source(s)?
Presumably. Transmitter fees for relaying it across the UK?
Presumably. But one would expect the former to be commensurate with
FreeSat and the latter with analogue. What makes up the £5/payer.yr
difference? Anyone know?

BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

In article , Max Demian wrote:

Once upon a time broadcasting was a Public Service, not a business. That
was the justification for financing it through a licence, rather than some
financially competitive means. With another little bit of that
justification eroded, I wonder how long the licence can be sustained?

Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as*
many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for*
subscription cards:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv

This will certainly hamper any further attempts to make broadcast TV a
subscription service, and hats off to him if that really was his purpose,
however a licence isn't the only way of paying for a free-to-view service. I
was thinking of the gradual change in the behaviour of the BBC over the years
so that it is now difficult to see what extra value it offers us that the
advertising funded channels don't.

Rod.

BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

Brian McIlwrath
Mizter T wrote:
: a rumour about this. Is there space on Astra 2D for more channels, or
: could another satellite provide the required tighter footprint?

Yes they will need to move to Astra 2D. No!! There is not space on that
satellite [...]

C4 rented some space from SES-Astra a while ago.
http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?id=294
Not sure whether they're using it all yet.
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Free Sat FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/astefaq
Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop maker,
Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

"m.t6" wrote:
Your probably right Bill. In the end some of the analogue sites have been
in use for 30 years and will need new equipment hut, antenna system and
possibly a new structure. I doubt the broadcasters will be interested
in providing a service for 500 people, when they can tell them to get
Freesat or Sky instead.

The analogue relay sites near me seem to double as mobile phone sites
(T-Mobile at Kewstoke, Orange at Hutton). Don't most of them?
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Free Sat FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/astefaq
Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop maker,
Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

In article ,
MJ Ray wrote:
"m.t6" wrote:
Your probably right Bill. In the end some of the analogue sites have
been in use for 30 years and will need new equipment hut, antenna
system and possibly a new structure. I doubt the broadcasters will be
interested in providing a service for 500 people, when they can tell
them to get Freesat or Sky instead.

The analogue relay sites near me seem to double as mobile phone sites
(T-Mobile at Kewstoke, Orange at Hutton). Don't most of them?

but the rental for that facility won't pay to upgrade the sites for DTTV.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

Java Jive wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:04:34 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote:
Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as
many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for
subscription cards:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv

Interesting link ...

"""Appearing before the public accounts committee for the first time
earlier this week, Caroline Thomson, the director of policy and legal
at the BBC, confirmed to MPs that while it costs £2 per licence fee
payer a year to transmit an analogue signal and £3 a year to broadcast
on digital satellite, licence fee payers shell out £7 a year for
Freeview customers."""

So the worst, most over-compressed, most interference-prone, of the
platforms is also the more than twice as expensive as the next most
costly? Mmmmm.

I wonder what figure includes? Producing the signal source(s)?
Presumably. Transmitter fees for relaying it across the UK?
Presumably. But one would expect the former to be commensurate with
FreeSat and the latter with analogue. What makes up the £5/payer.yr
difference? Anyone know?

If Equipment is being used for these figures, the £1/2M cost of the
Regional equipment, plus the several million for Coding and Mux in TC
and the Nations would contribute to this, and is high because it's new
technology. And a small bit for training, etc.

The analogue infrastructure is cheaper because it's old technology.

Staffing costs must be added to this, although the extra staff,
engineering-wise, for digital was only a handful. And most of these also
get used for other channel C & M, for which the Beeb get a large amount!
Exisiting engineers took on digital alongside analogue maintenance.

However, in 2008, most of the BBC's technical infrastructure is now so
old as to be surely written off and worth next to nothing.

I'd like to know the 2008 figures.

Richard

BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

In article , Kay Robinson
scribeth thus
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:30:52 +0000, Java Jive
sharpened a new quill and scratched:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:04:34 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote:

Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as
many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for
subscription cards:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv

Interesting link ...

"""Appearing before the public accounts committee for the first time
earlier this week, Caroline Thomson, the director of policy and legal
at the BBC, confirmed to MPs that while it costs £2 per licence fee
payer a year to transmit an analogue signal and £3 a year to broadcast
on digital satellite, licence fee payers shell out £7 a year for
Freeview customers."""

So the worst, most over-compressed, most interference-prone, of the
platforms is also the more than twice as expensive as the next most
costly? Mmmmm.

Do you actually have an LCD TV or even live in an area where Freeview
is available? From the comments I see you making in so many threads I
find it hard to believe. I have Freeview, two LCD tellys, a PVR and
two other recorders (one rather inferior) and have better more
detailed pictures than I ever had on analogue. Sure there is the odd
time when I get artifacts or the picture stops and restarts, only
about once a day though. probably a transmitter fault or interference
from a passing car or motorbike. BD (before digital) I suffered from
regular interence from passing traffic, total breakdown of two or more
of the four available channels, sometimes for an hour or two nd
similar breakups. For the first time I'm thinking the Beeb are
actually doing something usefull with my licence fee. Although I can't
get HD content from them yet, I have a couple of their HD DVDs which,
when played on my HD burner/player are absolutely mind-blowing.

If the answer to my question is yes! Then I suggest you stop using a
bent coathanger as an aerial or take up making model planes (or
crochet and tatting)

Kay

(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

Kay..

As someone who used to be in the TV trade at one point then spent a bit
of time at the other end as it were, the pictures that most everyone
sees on DTV are very poor relation's of what's actually happening in the
studios. These start at some 270 Megabits and get reduced to 2 or 4 for
final consumption.

I doubt you've seen a good analogue picture from a main TX with a good
PAL decoder but it wipes the floor with what passes on freeview and more
resembles what's coming out of the studio.

Now HD is step in the right direction but we have a way to go with that
as yet in the devices that present it and the way its distributed.

I look forward to the day when I can junk my Analogue 4:3 B&O TV for
some digital alternative that is truly "better"

--
Tony Sayer

BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

In article , Kay Robinson
scribeth thus
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:38:53 -0000, Roderick Stewart
sharpened a new quill and
scratched:

In article , Max Demian wrote:

Once upon a time broadcasting was a Public Service, not a business. That
was the justification for financing it through a licence, rather than some
financially competitive means. With another little bit of that
justification eroded, I wonder how long the licence can be sustained?

Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as*
many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for*
subscription cards:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv

This will certainly hamper any further attempts to make broadcast TV a
subscription service, and hats off to him if that really was his purpose,
however a licence isn't the only way of paying for a free-to-view service. I
was thinking of the gradual change in the behaviour of the BBC over the years
so that it is now difficult to see what extra value it offers us that the
advertising funded channels don't.

Rod.

Given the content changes made to so many BBC progs over the years,
and their adverts for what's on next etc. I've wondered if it's all
preparation for going commercial sometime in the future. As to quality
of service compared to commercial channels, with the exeption of sport
(which I detest (should be played not watched))

Agreed:)

they do far better
than all the commercial channels put together. A recent excellent and
easy to mention example was the series they did on 'Wainwright Walks'.
Very entertaining and informative with breath-taking photography.
Granada TV did a similar series of exactly the same walks (with the
evr popular but over exiteable Fred Talbot) and I actually recorded
both series and took the trouble to run them through the editor. The
BBC series averaged 26 minutes of actual content per episode compared
to the Granda version with an average of 16 minutes (mostly with views
spoilt by Fred's constant arm waving.)

So what did you make of Fred Dibnah then;?..

Having said that, the latest
series of Ben Fogle's 'Extreme Dreams' is the worst example of a BBC
programme I've ever watched, with over half the content consisting of
shots of what's been on, what's to come, reshots of who the people are
and what's left by Ben's constant chatter about how dangerous it all
is. Definitely unwatchable.

Kay

(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

--
Tony Sayer

BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:07:05 +0000, Kay Robinson
wrote:

Do you actually have an LCD TV or even live in an area where Freeview
is available?

Why are people so abusive these days? Common civility is not asking
that much surely?

I have ... better more
detailed pictures than I ever had on analogue.

As Tony has pointed out, the biggest problem is over-compression. It
wasn't too bad when Freeview first started, but now it is appalling
and totally unacceptable.

Formerly, just about my favourite type of programme was Natural
History/Wildlife documentaries. I was transfixed by all the
Attenborough series, up to and including Planet Earth, by the time of
which fortunately I had FreeSat.

But nowadays, the only type of natural history shots Freeview can cope
with are those that are static or nearly so. A still sunset or
landscape looks fabulous, but the moment there is any sort of detailed
movement, the picture just breaks up into squares.

Add to that the modern style of showing us more of the scientists
researching the animals, or even less justifiably the cameramen, than
the actual wildlife, an occasional choice of irritating
presenters/commentators such as Titchmarsh or Sean Pertwee, he of the
voice from a horror movie, and these days I barely bother to even
record natural history/wildlife programs on a time-shift basis, let
alone with a view to keeping any recording more permanently.

Alongside the chronic over-compression, there's the impulse
interference which is rampant on this 80s estate from everyone's c-h
systems, including, I admit, my own - I would be quite happy to get
mine serviced/fixed if everyone else did, but there's little point in
just one person doing it, at least until the c-h breaks down in other
ways.

Whereas analogue suffers some snow on video and crackling from audio
from such interference, digital breaks up completely, accompanied by
f*king loud 'gunfire' on audio, even to the point of occasional
temporary 'No Signal' messages.

If the answer to my question is yes! Then I suggest you stop using a
bent coathanger as an aerial

I did my aerial myself about two years ago with the help of the aerial
pros here, and made a much better job of it than the CAI installers
that I had originally paid £3-400 about five years previously. Signal
levels are about double what they were.

or take up making model planes (or
crochet and tatting)

I suggest you go back to an old-fashioned school where they beat out
teenage insolence that would otherwise become a personal problem in
later life.

There, you've got me at it now. Much better just to plonk you ...

BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
 

In article , Kay Robinson wrote:
Given the content changes made to so many BBC progs over the years,
and their adverts for what's on next etc. I've wondered if it's all
preparation for going commercial sometime in the future.

I don't think it's "preparation" in the sense that anyone is
deliberatley planning for it, but if they're not careful that's the way
it will go. The BBC needs to remember it's supposed to be a public
service, not a business, and behave accordingly. If it doesn't give the
licence-paying public anything different from what it already gets from
the commercial stations, then what are they paying for?

Rod.