Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 08:19:12 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Personally, I cannot stand plus 1 channels. They are an unnecessary luxury
with cheap pvrs about.

Depends, they can be useful when there are too many programmes on at
once to record all the ones you want. Also sometimes the bit rates are
better than the original channels.

Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:38:48 +0100, Albert Ross wrote:
Also sometimes the bit rates are better than the original
channels.

But if the +1 stations were not there, then the real channels
would have decent bit rates rather than just below barely
adequate.

Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:47:23 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:38:48 +0100, Albert Ross wrote:
Also sometimes the bit rates are better than the original
channels.

But if the +1 stations were not there, then the real channels
would have decent bit rates rather than just below barely
adequate.

hysterical laughter

The channels that used to carry +1 streams would surelyt continue in
existence carrying something else.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:15:44 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:47:23 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:38:48 +0100, Albert Ross wrote:
Also sometimes the bit rates are better than the original
channels.

But if the +1 stations were not there, then the real channels
would have decent bit rates rather than just below barely
adequate.

hysterical laughter

The channels that used to carry +1 streams would surelyt continue in
existence carrying something else.

And the something else would be ... ?

Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:31:03 +0100, lid wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:15:44 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:47:23 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:38:48 +0100, Albert Ross wrote:
Also sometimes the bit rates are better than the original
channels.

But if the +1 stations were not there, then the real channels
would have decent bit rates rather than just below barely
adequate.

hysterical laughter

The channels that used to carry +1 streams would surelyt continue in
existence carrying something else.

And the something else would be ... ?

In the current economic situation the channels might remain unused for a
while.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:41:28 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

The channels that used to carry +1 streams would surelyt continue in
existence carrying something else.

And the something else would be ... ?

In the current economic situation the channels might remain unused for a
while.

Then why not leave the +1 streams as they are?

Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:16:20 +0100, lid wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:41:28 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

The channels that used to carry +1 streams would surelyt continue in
existence carrying something else.

And the something else would be ... ?

In the current economic situation the channels might remain unused for a
while.

Then why not leave the +1 streams as they are?

I suppose the companies find that the costs of the +1 streams are not
sufficiently offset by advertising income, in other words they lose
money.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:54:29 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:16:20 +0100, lid wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:41:28 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

The channels that used to carry +1 streams would surelyt continue in
existence carrying something else.

And the something else would be ... ?

In the current economic situation the channels might remain unused for a
while.

Then why not leave the +1 streams as they are?

I suppose the companies find that the costs of the +1 streams are not
sufficiently offset by advertising income, in other words they lose
money.

If the companies were losing money on the +1 channels, they would soon
stop transmitting them. No-one forces them to transmit them.

Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:17:14 +0100, lid wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:54:29 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:16:20 +0100, lid wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:41:28 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

The channels that used to carry +1 streams would surelyt continue in
existence carrying something else.

And the something else would be ... ?

In the current economic situation the channels might remain unused for a
while.

Then why not leave the +1 streams as they are?

I suppose the companies find that the costs of the +1 streams are not
sufficiently offset by advertising income, in other words they lose
money.

If the companies were losing money on the +1 channels, they would soon
stop transmitting them. No-one forces them to transmit them.

Exactly.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Virgin 1 +1 gone
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:17:14 +0100, lid wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:54:29 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:16:20 +0100, lid wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:41:28 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

The channels that used to carry +1 streams would surelyt continue in
existence carrying something else.

And the something else would be ... ?

In the current economic situation the channels might remain unused for
a
while.

Then why not leave the +1 streams as they are?

I suppose the companies find that the costs of the +1 streams are not
sufficiently offset by advertising income, in other words they lose
money.

If the companies were losing money on the +1 channels, they would soon
stop transmitting them. No-one forces them to transmit them.

Exactly.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)


I find the +1 useful as it helps get rid of the 9-11 pm log jam.
Gary