BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview

Paul D.Smith wrote:


True, but what channels are they?

BBC HD (Both D-SAT platforms)
ITV HD Freesat EPG only, though receivable on some Sky, and generic HD
boxes)
C4 HD Sky Only
Luxe HD (Both D-SAT platforms)

Are are people really going to watch
HD in numbers without sport and big bucks movies - neither of which will
be free.

BBC HD: World Cup and Euro Footie, Wimbledon, Olympics, US Masters Golf,
ITV HD: FA Cup, Champions League.

Movies, don't bother with Sky, rent the BluRay discs, or wait three
years for them to pop up on BBC, ITV, or C4 HD.

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message ...

True, but what channels are they? Are are people really going to watch HD
in numbers without sport and big bucks movies - neither of which will be
free.


Actually , yes.
I'm very happy with Hi-Def shows from the BBC.
Stuff like the recent South Pacific and Human Journey documentaries , dramas like Survivors and ideally their motorsport coverage.

I'd pay for the kit to receive FTA HD transmissions of stuff that's on the "free" channels and wouldn't want to pay for movies (Lovefilm and BluRay offer better value) or sport (no interest in footie or cricket)

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

wrote in message
...
Years ago, I remember commenting that there was nothing necessarily
wrong with HD on Freeview, but it was likely that the BBC would
cripple its HD offering everywhere else as a result - holding back
from broadcasting multiple HD channels on DSat while there was only
room for one on DTT.

So insisting on making HD available on Freeview would actually
_reduce_ the choice of many people, as further BBC HD channels
launches would be delayed.


Well, straight from the horses mouth...

"I think that broadcasting the whole of the BBC's channel portfolio in
HD is a very long way off - you know better than most what capacity
would be required to do that, and how fast compression is coming into
help. But that doesn't mean that I believe we will only broadcast a
single compilation channel for evermore. We would not want to develop
an HD offer which could not suit all the available HD platforms, and
the capacity limits on Freeview are therefore a limiting factor at the
moment."

...from here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...on_bbc_hd.html

...not to say they have enough to fill the single channel at present,
but as they seek to broadcast more HD content, the limit will always
be "what can we fit on Freeview"?

Cheers,
David.



They need not bother. I won't be watching BBC DOG **** smeared TV pictures.

On 16 June, 08:36, "Paul D.Smith" wrote:
...snip...

In order to watch HD, you need an HD TV (thus outlay!). *The additional cost
of an HD satellite system is not much on top.

So let's face facts, Freeview is fine for SD but HD can stay on satellite..
Let's get Freeview with SD, some decent bitrates and 5.1 sound and recognise
that by the time HD takes off, satellite systems will be being given away
with a gallon of petrol ;-).

While I like that approach, the BBC is proposing exactly the opposite:
any BBC HD channel that can't fit on Freeview won't go on DSat either.

Cheers,
David.

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:07:41 +0100, Paul D.Smith wrote:

A hell of a lot of the market for HDTV is at the supermarket end
of the
scale - £300 32" sets.

Oh, so we're talking 720? I was hoping for real HD (1080) ;-).

Nope:

http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.206-8751.aspx

OK Only 3p short of £400 but all the same 1080p.

I would be interested to see what proportion of people are willing to
pay for HD just to watch BBC1/2/ITV etc.

"True HD", ie 1080 minimum I'd pay for a decent screen the cost of a
HD DSAT box of some sort is not great. "HD Ready" is a misleading
marketing expression in my book. In shops I've rarely seen proper HD
on the demo sets, there is another thread somewhere about in which
someone asks about the difference SD/HD. If you have ever seen proper
HD you don't need to ask about the difference it is very obvious. By
proper HD I mean from Bluray or other decent bit rate source. DSAT
HD can just about manage it not so sure about freeview. Freeview SD I
consider virtually unwatchable even on the mains stream channels...

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Light of Aria" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
Years ago, I remember commenting that there was nothing necessarily
wrong with HD on Freeview, but it was likely that the BBC would
cripple its HD offering everywhere else as a result - holding back
from broadcasting multiple HD channels on DSat while there was only
room for one on DTT.

So insisting on making HD available on Freeview would actually
_reduce_ the choice of many people, as further BBC HD channels
launches would be delayed.


Well, straight from the horses mouth...

"I think that broadcasting the whole of the BBC's channel portfolio in
HD is a very long way off - you know better than most what capacity
would be required to do that, and how fast compression is coming into
help. But that doesn't mean that I believe we will only broadcast a
single compilation channel for evermore. We would not want to develop
an HD offer which could not suit all the available HD platforms, and
the capacity limits on Freeview are therefore a limiting factor at the
moment."

...from here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...on_bbc_hd.html

...not to say they have enough to fill the single channel at present,
but as they seek to broadcast more HD content, the limit will always
be "what can we fit on Freeview"?

Cheers,
David.



They need not bother. I won't be watching BBC DOG **** smeared TV pictures.

You know , I doubt the BBC base their broadcasting just on your opinions.
I also wonder how many people who foam at the mouth about DOGs are telling the truth when they say they won't watch any channel that uses them.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:00:10 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

And my point is why waste valuable bandwidth and substantial effort on
implementing a system which is already obsolete? We should be aiming for
tomorrow's picture (1080p) and not phaffing around with something little
better than the existing SD system.

I am glad you aren't making the decisions then. I would much rather
have 2 or 3 times as many HD channels showing at a decent bitrate than
a couple of 1080P that isn't necessary and that not everyone can see.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

They need not bother. I won't be watching BBC DOG **** smeared TV
pictures.

You know , I doubt the BBC base their broadcasting just on your opinions.
I also wonder how many people who foam at the mouth about DOGs are telling
the truth when they say they won't watch any channel that uses them.

--







I don't know. How many?

Be that as it may, I don't pay the BBC TV Licence and I'll be out all night
anyway, so by either measure, The BBC will have deselected my opinion (and
cash).

I suspect there's an awful lot of us who don't count, actually.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:00:10 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

And my point is why waste valuable bandwidth and substantial effort on
implementing a system which is already obsolete? We should be aiming for
tomorrow's picture (1080p) and not phaffing around with something little
better than the existing SD system.

I am glad you aren't making the decisions then. I would much rather
have 2 or 3 times as many HD channels showing at a decent bitrate than
a couple of 1080P that isn't necessary and that not everyone can see.

So

- you get 2-3 times as many channels you want and I get to loose channels
that I want to watch?

- we don't get a decent SD bitrate so I'd be amazed if we get a decent HD
bitrate, and if we do that's more channels lost to make space.

- and you might be able to watch 720i/p but I can't. Your 720 TV should be
able to downgrade a 1080 picture - my SD can't handle any HD.

I think I'll stop now because clearly I'm fighting a loosing battle ;-).
Personally I simply don't believe we'll get anything close to a decent
Freeview HD service so I'd rather they sorted out Freeview SD first.

Paul DS

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote in message
...
But the percentage of properties which are in Conservation Areas or
listed buildings is very low compared to the average. Also, such
properties tend to be where cable is a viable alternative.

You must be thinking of urban ones. There are a lot of rural conservation
areas, listed
buildings, and areas of outstanding whatsit. They don't have cable.

Bill

Indeed but if you are rural, would you have room for a dish in the garden or
don't they allow that either? I suppose there must be "small" listed
building with small gardens in the country too.

I do rather wonder how people reacted when Band I/III aerials started
appearing on buildings because personally I find a well sited $ky size dish
quite unobtrusive and certainly no worse than a wide band, high gain TV
antenna. But I suppose you do get a little more "play" as to where to site
TV aerials.

Paul DS