yeah, section 5.53 on page 75 reveals exactly what the BBC proposes to do
LOL! You've got to love this era of transparency and freedom of information that we live in!
Seriously, it seems that when "accountants and business advisers" get involved, there is no room for technical innovation, or striving for higher standards. Pages 81-84 are just depressing!
Doubtless if these same people had been asked in the 1960s, we wouldn't have launched colour because no one had colour TV sets. Anyone pointing to the success of colour in the USA would have been told "that's the USA - the UK is different."(!)
If they had been asked in the 1970s, we wouldn't have launched teletext because no one had suitable decoders and everyone could buy newspapers(!).
If they had been asked in the 1980s, we wouldn't have launched stereo sound on TV because no one had suitable TVs and who cares about such a small improvement anyway?!
Something about "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing" comes to mind!
LOL! You've got to love this era of transparency and freedom of information that we live in!
Seriously, it seems that when "accountants and business advisers" get involved, there is no room for technical innovation, or striving for higher standards. Pages 81-84 are just depressing!
Doubtless if these same people had been asked in the 1960s, we wouldn't have launched colour because no one had colour TV sets. Anyone pointing to the success of colour in the USA would have been told "that's the USA - the UK is different."(!)
If they had been asked in the 1970s, we wouldn't have launched teletext because no one had suitable decoders and everyone could buy newspapers(!).
If they had been asked in the 1980s, we wouldn't have launched stereo sound on TV because no one had suitable TVs and who cares about such a small improvement anyway?!
Something about "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing" comes to mind!
If they had been asked in the 1970s, we wouldn't have launched teletext because no one had suitable decoders and everyone could buy newspapers(!).
One slight problem with that... who invented Teletext. Yeah.....
Not something the BBC could really refuse to roll out after others had done so, because the others who could have done so would have had to break in to the BBC to get it.
Doubtless if these same people had been asked in the 1960s, we wouldn't have launched colour because no one had colour TV sets. Anyone pointing to the success of colour in the USA would have been told "that's the USA - the UK is different."(!)
Colour TV was different. Remember, Britain itself was only available in black & white until the 1960s, so colour TV was unnecessary. Once Britain got converted to colour, the TVs & broadcasts went with it...
If the bean counters who wrote this depressingly narrow- minded report ( referred to above ) had been in charge of the direction of the BBC in recent history, there would have been no technological or artistic change in the BBC over the past decades, and therefore much of British broadcasting.
Just goes to show that accountants should never be put in charge of anything other than an A4 lever arch box file.
Is it me or should the spending of our money (as the TV Licence indeed is) be looked at closely like this. Simply saying that all financial considerations should be ignored is nonsense.
You have to look at whether it a) justifies the increase in the TV licence, which is what this is about, and b) weather the money would be better spent elsewhere.
If the cost of the BBC launching an full HD channel is the cost of several documentaries, surely it's reasonable to ask whether more documentaries would help "inform, educate and entertain" more than an arbitrary increase in resolution, that would only be received by 10% of the population would.
Having said that you'd expect blanks in an SIS spending review but not a BBC one, and there are some inaccuracies. For instance - the implication that MPEG 2 HD wouldn't require a new box, current boxes wouldn't even be able to downscale an MPEG 2 HD stream let alone show it full res.
Incidentally doesn't anyone realize this is a PKF independent review - basically a devil's advocate, it's there present opposing arguments to the BBC's plans, so the government can make a (hopefully) better decision. It doesn't "show BBC intentions" more question them
I think the licence fee and the BBC should be examined for value for money, certainly.
What I have a problem with is that the very things which I believe a licence-free funded public service broadcaster should be doing are the things which this report questions.
I can switch on BBC One mid evening most week nights to see examples of what I think a public service broadcaster _shouldn't_ be doing!
"In addition, the BBC assumes that it will be provided with access to a third mux to transmit HD services from 2013 onwards."
Nice of the BBC to assume they'll be gifted access to even more DTT space when they could actually fit an HD service within their existing multiplexes, right now, if they wanted...
Nice of the BBC to assume they'll be gifted access to even more DTT space when they could actually fit an HD service within their existing multiplexes, right now, if they wanted...
Nice of the BBC to assume they'll be gifted access to even more DTT space when they could actually fit an HD service within their existing multiplexes, right now, if they wanted...
Unless you're thinking a non-realtime download channel for use with a PVR, there is no way they could fit an HD service into their existing multiplexes.
Unless you're thinking a non-realtime download channel for use with a PVR, there is no way they could fit an HD service into their existing multiplexes.
Not even if they revert both multiplexes to 64QAM, and shift all channels, onto the one multiplex? :eek:
Not even if they revert both multiplexes to 64QAM, and shift all channels, onto the one multiplex? :eek:
Switching to 64QAM might create enough additional space for a single real-time HD channel without affecting existing services, but that's not going to happen until switchover. Saying that the BBC could add a HD service to their multiplexes "right now" is bollocks.
Switching to 64QAM might create enough additional space for a single real-time HD channel without affecting existing services, but that's not going to happen until switchover. Saying that the BBC could add a HD service to their multiplexes "right now" is bollocks.
Agreed - the only hope for a BBC HD channel on DTT is after swichover in 2012 when spectrum gets released. No other technical changes are likely to be undertaken on any BBC mux before then, especially ones (like a change in QAM) which would increase reception problems in fringe areas, or changes which would impact Freeview takeup.
"In addition, the BBC assumes that it will be provided with access to a third mux to transmit HD services from 2013 onwards."
Nice of the BBC to assume they'll be gifted access to even more DTT space when they could actually fit an HD service within their existing multiplexes, right now, if they wanted...
Of course it has to be a working assumption as nothing has been agreed with the Government (but that should not stop them planning for that possibility should it?). As for a HD service via existing muxes, see me post above.
Just found this thread hidden away here. This should be a made a sticky in the broadcasting section. That report has lots to say, it will take me at least a few days to go through.
Just after the hi-def section on page 89, this got my attention "none of the commerical channels would be able to make a positive operating profit by 2010." This is due to the fragmentation of tv by digital channels and technology such as PVRs. Looks like we're on the verge of a major change in broadcasting over the next 5-10 years....Hi-Def tv is probably only a minor issue compared to others.
Saying that the BBC could add a HD service to their multiplexes "right now" is bollocks.
Why not experiment with HD (or just MPEG4 SD) in the 301/302 bandwidth ?
MPEG4 at 576p would improve the pictures markedly for the general public on their 42" LCDs and Plasmas without a bandwidth penalty - and would pave the way for the take-up of HD capable STBs before the bandwidth becomes available for more generalised HD-DTT.
Why not experiment with HD (or just MPEG4 SD) in the 301/302 bandwidth ?
Because that would take away BBC's interactive services on freeview. Plus there isn't much point doing a nationwide broadcast where only a tiny handful may have the required hardware.
Because that would take away BBC's interactive services on freeview. Plus there isn't much point doing a nationwide broadcast where only a tiny handful may have the required hardware.
... bit like having BBC4 takes away the kiddies channel ?
Don't you think that people may buy boxes if tests transmissions were available ?
![[Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/36c547e74c1d5a8cf038efbbdb3dd855.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 472
Comments
yeah, section 5.53 on page 75 reveals exactly what the BBC proposes to do
LOL! You've got to love this era of transparency and freedom of information that we live in!
Seriously, it seems that when "accountants and business advisers" get involved, there is no room for technical innovation, or striving for higher standards. Pages 81-84 are just depressing!
Doubtless if these same people had been asked in the 1960s, we wouldn't have launched colour because no one had colour TV sets. Anyone pointing to the success of colour in the USA would have been told "that's the USA - the UK is different."(!)
If they had been asked in the 1970s, we wouldn't have launched teletext because no one had suitable decoders and everyone could buy newspapers(!).
If they had been asked in the 1980s, we wouldn't have launched stereo sound on TV because no one had suitable TVs and who cares about such a small improvement anyway?!
Something about "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing" comes to mind!
Cheers,
David.
I couldn't have put it better myself!
One slight problem with that... who invented Teletext. Yeah.....
Not something the BBC could really refuse to roll out after others had done so, because the others who could have done so would have had to break in to the BBC to get it.
Colour TV was different. Remember, Britain itself was only available in black & white until the 1960s, so colour TV was unnecessary. Once Britain got converted to colour, the TVs & broadcasts went with it...
That was a brief period whilst John Major was in charge. It was cover for his parliamentry swingers club, or cabinet as he used to call it.
Just goes to show that accountants should never be put in charge of anything other than an A4 lever arch box file.
You have to look at whether it a) justifies the increase in the TV licence, which is what this is about, and b) weather the money would be better spent elsewhere.
If the cost of the BBC launching an full HD channel is the cost of several documentaries, surely it's reasonable to ask whether more documentaries would help "inform, educate and entertain" more than an arbitrary increase in resolution, that would only be received by 10% of the population would.
Having said that you'd expect blanks in an SIS spending review but not a BBC one, and there are some inaccuracies. For instance - the implication that MPEG 2 HD wouldn't require a new box, current boxes wouldn't even be able to downscale an MPEG 2 HD stream let alone show it full res.
Incidentally doesn't anyone realize this is a PKF independent review - basically a devil's advocate, it's there present opposing arguments to the BBC's plans, so the government can make a (hopefully) better decision. It doesn't "show BBC intentions" more question them
What I have a problem with is that the very things which I believe a licence-free funded public service broadcaster should be doing are the things which this report questions.
I can switch on BBC One mid evening most week nights to see examples of what I think a public service broadcaster _shouldn't_ be doing!
Cheers,
David.
Nice of the BBC to assume they'll be gifted access to even more DTT space when they could actually fit an HD service within their existing multiplexes, right now, if they wanted...
Unless you're thinking a non-realtime download channel for use with a PVR, there is no way they could fit an HD service into their existing multiplexes.
Not even if they revert both multiplexes to 64QAM, and shift all channels, onto the one multiplex? :eek:
Switching to 64QAM might create enough additional space for a single real-time HD channel without affecting existing services, but that's not going to happen until switchover. Saying that the BBC could add a HD service to their multiplexes "right now" is bollocks.
Just after the hi-def section on page 89, this got my attention "none of the commerical channels would be able to make a positive operating profit by 2010." This is due to the fragmentation of tv by digital channels and technology such as PVRs. Looks like we're on the verge of a major change in broadcasting over the next 5-10 years....Hi-Def tv is probably only a minor issue compared to others.
MPEG4 at 576p would improve the pictures markedly for the general public on their 42" LCDs and Plasmas without a bandwidth penalty - and would pave the way for the take-up of HD capable STBs before the bandwidth becomes available for more generalised HD-DTT.
Because that would take away BBC's interactive services on freeview. Plus there isn't much point doing a nationwide broadcast where only a tiny handful may have the required hardware.
Don't you think that people may buy boxes if tests transmissions were available ?