BBC/ITV FreeSat - will this be any different from FreeSatFromSky?

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
André Coutanche wrote:

The data is timed to the second. Some programmes may be few minutes
out but this shouldn't prevent the recording from taking place,
albeit a little truncated.

*****

"Albeit a little truncated"?! So missing the end of a programme
because the BBC has decided to lie to its viewers about the
transmission times is OK?

When will the BBC and its apologists realise that deliberately
incorrect EPG data is unacceptable?

The Sky EPG can be updated by the second. It should never be wrong.

Doh!
So if the BBC dont update it when a BBC programme, being played out by the
BBC, is late, why do you say its Sky's fault?

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Jomtien wrote:
André Coutanche wrote:

When will the BBC and its apologists realise that deliberately
incorrect EPG data is unacceptable?

The Sky EPG can be updated by the second. It should never be wrong.

*****

The point, as I understand it from information which has been posted
on uk.tech.digital-tv in the past and not denied, is that the BBC has
two schedules. The published schedule, which appears in the printed
listings and on the EPG, says that, for example, Eastenders runs from
2000 to 2030. However, the *internal* schedule, which is never
published, may say that on a given day, it actually runs from 1959 to
2028 or from 2002 to 2031. The internal schedule is kept to, and
anyone relying on the EPG to program their VCR or PVR loses the
beginning or end.

The BBC - and possibly others, but it's more reprehensible, IMO, in
the case of the BBC - are deliberately lying to their audience in
order to play silly scheduling games with the opposition.

André Coutanche

The BBC - and possibly others, but it's more reprehensible, IMO, in
the case of the BBC - are deliberately lying to their audience in
order to play silly scheduling games with the opposition.

André Coutanche

********

André Coutanche wrote:
Jomtien wrote:
André Coutanche wrote:

When will the BBC and its apologists realise that deliberately
incorrect EPG data is unacceptable?

The Sky EPG can be updated by the second. It should never be wrong.

The point, as I understand it from information which has been posted
on uk.tech.digital-tv in the past and not denied, is that the BBC has
two schedules. The published schedule, which appears in the printed
listings and on the EPG, says that, for example, Eastenders runs from
2000 to 2030. However, the *internal* schedule, which is never
published, may say that on a given day, it actually runs from 1959 to
2028 or from 2002 to 2031. The internal schedule is kept to, and
anyone relying on the EPG to program their VCR or PVR loses the
beginning or end.

Unless they use PDC - which sends a signal a second before the
programme starts, and it stays "on" until the programme finishes.

Many broadcasters managed to mess that up too though...

--
Mike

Malcolm H wrote:
The BBC - and possibly others, but it's more reprehensible, IMO, in
the case of the BBC - are deliberately lying to their audience in
order to play silly scheduling games with the opposition.

André Coutanche

********

Not completely. The BBC do sometimes use scheduling as a way of keeping
viewer focus (you usually find that where a soap on one channel is
followed by a competing soap on another channel there is overlap even if
the published schedules suggest otherwise), but the differences between
the internal and published schedules are more often due to rounding. The
published schedule is rounded to five-minute boundaries, which leads to
interesting situations like the Simpsons (an old, but classic, example)
- where each episode is 22 minutes and a bit - being advertised in a
slot from 1800 to 1820. Anyone using the published schedule to try and
record it would miss at least two minutes regardless of whether it
started earlier, later, or on time - it just cannot fit into the
advertised slot. This is one of the reasons why timer-based EPGs such as
TiVo's can have problems with BBC channels - the BBC has been asked to
release the internal schedule to Tribune Media (who do the EPG data) but
they won't do it.


--
Angus G Rae Science & Engineering Support Team
Computing Services
University of Edinburgh
The above opinions are mine, and Edinburgh University can't have them

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:06:16 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

Never mind other channels, they could start by broadcasting full EPG
data for their own services. Yet they choose not to. What does that
tell you?

It tells me that they are probably developing the means to do so.

So the fact that an organisation ISN'T doing something, is an
indicator that they are probably getting ready to do so? Crikey, I
wish I had your faith.

If the data looks correct then it almost certainly is.

The data you can see is only part of the equation. There's lots of
data you can't see, and which can (and often is) wrong. Whose
responsibility is that?

Either way, Sky
are totally responsible for everything that happens in the Sky EPG and
also to the Sky+.

... unfortunately EPG listings and the data which Sky+ uses to record
from are the responsibility of the channels themselves. So failed
recordings on BBC channels usually mean the BBC has flubbed the data.
Not that this stops people blaming Sky.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:46:36 +0000, Adrian C wrote:

It's not only a profitable enterprise - Murdoch's a monopolistic mogal
who concentrates on annilation of the competition, corruption,
restrictive practices, exploitation ... the unhappy list goes on.

See also: Bill Gates. Would like to see them both left to rot on an
uninhabited desert island somehere. IMHO, of course.

Zero Tolerance wrote:

Either way, Sky
are totally responsible for everything that happens in the Sky EPG and
also to the Sky+.

.. unfortunately EPG listings and the data which Sky+ uses to record
from are the responsibility of the channels themselves. So failed
recordings on BBC channels usually mean the BBC has flubbed the data.

No, the responsibility is Sky's. If they are being given bad data then
it is up to them to ensure that those giving the bad data are made to
improve it. No matter which way you look at it it is Sky's
responsibility because they are in charge. That is what the word
means.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Tumbleweed wrote:

The Sky EPG can be updated by the second. It should never be wrong.

Doh!
So if the BBC dont update it when a BBC programme, being played out by the
BBC, is late, why do you say its Sky's fault?

Because Sky are responsible and should ensure that all data is
correct.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Zero Tolerance wrote:

The Sky EPG is quite capable of being 100% right all the time and if
it isn't then there is only one party responsible: the party that
controls the EPG. And that is Sky.

Except that the data is provided and updated by the individual
channels, so the error is theirs and actually not Sky's at all.

The responsibility is Sky's as they are in charge. The error could be
anyone's but that is neither here nor there.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)