How Sky can save money, maybe?

In article ,
John Legon wrote:
HD bitrates generally seem to be falling, perhaps as encoders become
more efficient.

No - it saves money. And a gradual reduction in quality prepares the
gullible public for the future launch of a super improved HD service.
*******s, the lot of them. I can remember just how good the original HD
was. It's barely worth the bother now.

--
*If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Legon wrote:
HD bitrates generally seem to be falling, perhaps as encoders become
more efficient.

No - it saves money. And a gradual reduction in quality prepares the
gullible public for the future launch of a super improved HD service.
*******s, the lot of them. I can remember just how good the original HD
was. It's barely worth the bother now.

Well, I think the BBC said they were using better encoders, but I looked
a recent HD recording this morning and the mean rate was only 7.4 Mb/s.
That's only half of what it was originally, even though we're back to
a 1920 x 1080 frame.

In article ,
John Legon wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Legon wrote:
HD bitrates generally seem to be falling, perhaps as encoders become
more efficient.

No - it saves money. And a gradual reduction in quality prepares the
gullible public for the future launch of a super improved HD service.
*******s, the lot of them. I can remember just how good the original HD
was. It's barely worth the bother now.

Well, I think the BBC said they were using better encoders, but I looked
a recent HD recording this morning and the mean rate was only 7.4 Mb/s.
That's only half of what it was originally, even though we're back to
a 1920 x 1080 frame.

Of course they justify it by saying they're using better encoders. What
else would you expect? That the results are clearly inferior at home
bothers them not one jot.

--
*Husbands should come with instructions

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/09/2012 08:50, John Legon wrote:
HD bitrates generally seem to be falling, perhaps as encoders become
more efficient.

HD bitrates are falling because quality doesn't sell (especially when it
drops gradually - think frogs in hot water) whereas extra channels are
clearly saleable.

I don't know who to though, it isn't me - I only ever check 1-5 and BBC4.

Andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Legon wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Legon wrote:
HD bitrates generally seem to be falling, perhaps as encoders become
more efficient.
No - it saves money. And a gradual reduction in quality prepares the
gullible public for the future launch of a super improved HD service.
*******s, the lot of them. I can remember just how good the original HD
was. It's barely worth the bother now.

Well, I think the BBC said they were using better encoders, but I looked
at a recent HD recording this morning and the mean rate was only 7.4 Mb/s.
That's only half of what it was originally, even though we're back to
a 1920 x 1080 frame.

Of course they justify it by saying they're using better encoders. What
else would you expect? That the results are clearly inferior at home
bothers them not one jot.

I would *not* expect the BBC to say they were using better encoders
unless they were using better encoders. However, that was some time ago
now and the recent further fall in bitrates is different. Figures for
various satellite channels can be found at www.linowsat.de, showing that
the average HD bitrate for major German broadcasters is around 12 Mb/s.
The same site gives 6.1 and 6.7 Mb/s for BBC One HD and BBC HD. This
is HD broadcasting in name only.

Andy Champ wrote:

I don't know who to though, it isn't me - I only ever check 1-5 and BBC4.

The lower orders (who are often of mean intelligence) tend to flick
though all the channels until they find something of interest to them.
Since these people tend to be weak-minded and weak-willed they are
likely to have their purchases swayed by TV advertisements, so the
system works tolerably well on the whole.

Bill

In article ,
John Legon wrote:
Of course they justify it by saying they're using better encoders. What
else would you expect? That the results are clearly inferior at home
bothers them not one jot.

I would *not* expect the BBC to say they were using better encoders
unless they were using better encoders.

Oh, they may well be better encoders - but don't compensate for the
reduced bit rate. That's what I meant.

However, that was some time ago
now and the recent further fall in bitrates is different. Figures for
various satellite channels can be found at www.linowsat.de, showing that
the average HD bitrate for major German broadcasters is around 12 Mb/s.
The same site gives 6.1 and 6.7 Mb/s for BBC One HD and BBC HD. This
is HD broadcasting in name only.

Quite.

--
*If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

That was how I got my Sky+ box a few years ago when I had a CRT TV and
didn't even know about HD.

I wonder if it will work a second time, I only have the minimum TV package
anyway, I get my broadband and phone from Virgin.

"AlanC" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, 12 September 2012 19:44:08 UTC+1, Ron wrote:
Also any way for me to get a free HD Sky+ plus box to replace my SD Sky+
box? Ron

Tell them you want to leave.

I did this the other week for my mum. I was helping her with her finances
and realised that she was spending a lot of money on TV/Broadband/Phone and
that it would be cheaper to combine the lot into one provider. The cheapest
option would have been to go with Freeview but she wasnt too keen (I think
its just because she was familiar with Sky). Anyway, called them up about
their £21.50 a month package which covers everything and was told that they
wouldnt give her a new HD box as it was only available to new customers. I
told them I wasnt happy about that and asked to switch to their 'Freeview
over Sky' option (one of payment for the card). They transfered me to the
cancellations department who said that it wouldnt be a problem providing her
with a free box (plus free installation to upgrade to a quad LNB).

They might call your bluff if they think you arent really going to leave!

Alan

On 14/09/2012 20:31, Bill Wright wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:

I don't know who to though, it isn't me - I only ever check 1-5 and BBC4.

The lower orders (who are often of mean intelligence) tend to flick
though all the channels until they find something of interest to them.
Since these people tend to be weak-minded and weak-willed they are
likely to have their purchases swayed by TV advertisements, so the
system works tolerably well on the whole.

Bill



hey Bill was that you sending letters to Fiona ?

critcher wrote:

hey Bill was that you sending letters to Fiona ?
To which of the many Fionas in my circle do you allude?

Bill