BBC Two HD
 

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
Scott wrote:
I see the BBC Two high definition channel is to be launched on 26
March:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/lat...bc-two-hd.html

As I understand it, this is to be a single version for the whole UK
without opt-outs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

What is the logic behind this? If BBC One Scotland is shown in HD (in
Scotland) and STV is shown in HD in Scotland, why not BBC Two Scotland
rather than BBC Two 'London'? If they are making up a tartan mux, why
not include BBC Two Scotland?

Because under DQF proposals, BBC 2 'nations' are to be ditched within
the next couple of years, and presumably the programming transferred
to the BBC 1 nations.

except during the Olympic games when all regional/national progarmmes are
transferred to BBC2 ;-)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

BBC Two HD
 

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:52:30 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:16:36 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

Being proudly and stubbornly independent they will build their own
rocket and launch their own satellite into orbit.

But they'd have to put it into orbit above Scotland (at least some
of the time) rather than the equator.

because?

to allow a very tight beam to serve Scotland only, perhaps?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

BBC Two HD
 

In message , alan
writes
They spend millions on promoting Jimmy Savile and yet they cannot spend
a few pennies to show the Potter's wheel when they cannot be bothered
to broadcast on a channel.
By the potters wheel, I take it that you mean the one that used to be
shown during the intermissions on the old 405 transmissions before ITV?
--
Clive

BBC Two HD
 

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:22:13 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:16:36 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:58:32 -0000, "Rick" wrote:



"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:18:17 +0000, Scott
wrote:

I see the BBC Two high definition channel is to be launched on 26
March:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/lat...bc-two-hd.html

As I understand it, this is to be a single version for the whole UK
without opt-outs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

What is the logic behind this? If BBC One Scotland is shown in HD (in
Scotland) and STV is shown in HD in Scotland, why not BBC Two Scotland
rather than BBC Two 'London'? If they are making up a tartan mux, why
not include BBC Two Scotland?

This change applies to satellite channels as well. To make opt-outs
possible for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would need an extra 3
HD satellite channels. This would cost money even assuming that there is
capacity on the transponders.

There may of course be benefits in allowing viewers in Scotland to
avoid Newsnight Scotland in the run-up to the referendum!


If Scotland votes for total independence, then they'll be requiring their
own national broadcaster.


Being proudly and stubbornly independent they will build their own
rocket and launch their own satellite into orbit.

Communication satellites used by UK are launched by Arianespace, with
zero British involvement and either built by Astrium a predominantly
Franco German company or by American companies. BAe sold their
interests in spacecraft production long ago.

Indeed. But I was suggesting, satirically, that Scotland outside the UK
would want to do the whole job indepedently of anyone else.

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

BBC Two HD
 

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:22:58 +0100, Martin wrote:

Being proudly and stubbornly independent they will build their own
rocket and launch their own satellite into orbit.

But they'd have to put it into orbit above Scotland (at least some
of the time) rather than the equator.

because?

Because they're Scottish of course.

BBC Two HD
 

Martin wrote:

I meant why put it in an orbit over Scotland ever? It would be in a
geostationary orbit over the equator just like other countries'
communication satellites are.

That's just a silly restriction. I suppose the Common Market is behind
it. We should be able to put satellites anywhere we like. I'm voting UKIP.

BBC Two HD
 

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Martin wrote:

I meant why put it in an orbit over Scotland ever? It would be in a
geostationary orbit over the equator just like other countries'
communication satellites are.

That's just a silly restriction. I suppose the Common Market is behind
it. We should be able to put satellites anywhere we like. I'm voting
UKIP.

There are obvious snags in placing and keeping a geostationary satellite
in position above Scotland, However, couldn't they transmit from a
satellite dangling from a tethered hot-air balloon, filled with the
inexhaustible supply of the hot air that the SNP spouts about the
advantages of complete independence?
--
Ian

BBC Two HD
 

Ian Jackson wrote:

There are obvious snags in placing and keeping a geostationary satellite
in position above Scotland

It's only a matter of keeping it still. I think fishing line would do
it. Three lengths, tethered to widely spaced places in Scotland, would
be enough.

Incidentally I see that the Scottish wind turbines are actually a net
contributor to global warming, because of the amount of peat their
construction has disturbed.

Bill

BBC Two HD
 

In article ,
Clive wrote:

In message , alan
writes
They spend millions on promoting Jimmy Savile and yet they cannot spend
a few pennies to show the Potter's wheel when they cannot be bothered
to broadcast on a channel.
By the potters wheel, I take it that you mean the one that used to be
shown during the intermissions on the old 405 transmissions before ITV?

Not ITV: it was one of a number of interlude films used by the BBC to
fill several minute gaps between programmes in the early 1950s - others
included windmills and Snowy the kitten. The Potter's Wheel film can be
seen he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUzGF401vLc

BBC Two HD
 

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:

There are obvious snags in placing and keeping a geostationary
satellite in position above Scotland

It's only a matter of keeping it still. I think fishing line would do
it. Three lengths, tethered to widely spaced places in Scotland, would
be enough.

Incidentally I see that the Scottish wind turbines are actually a net
contributor to global warming, because of the amount of peat their
construction has disturbed.

So what do they do with the peat they disturb? Surely they don't just
burn it? Of course, I suppose it could always be used as fuel for power
stations. ;o)
--
Ian