Digital  permalink

BBC HD Channel

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 46 of 46
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by RosebudXanadu (U9513088) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    I'm a bit confused about the BBC ads which are being aired. Fiona Bruce has just said you can get BBC HD with Sky, Virgin or Freesat.

    Does that mean HD isn't available on terrestrial digital even if you've got an HD ready TV ?

    Any feedback appreciated.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by dave (U2043922) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    There is no HD on freeview yet, so having the HD ready TV won't make freeview HD yet, you will need freesat, cable, sky, blueray etc.

    It may start on Freeview in 2009/10/11/12 depending on when you get the Digital switchover.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by the bfg (U6141852) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Better HD picture quality is more likely on Satellite and Cable than Freeview. If you're not subscribing, Freesat seems a better package but hopefully Sky's prices will begin to fall with the competition.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Chris (U1572381) on Monday, 26th May 2008


    I'm a bit confused about the BBC ads which are being aired. Fiona Bruce has just said you can get BBC HD with Sky, Virgin or Freesat.

    Does that mean HD isn't available on terrestrial digital even if you've got an HD ready TV ?

    Any feedback appreciated.
     


    No BBC HD on terrestrial digital. Only available on cable & satellite at the moment.

    A lot of people (and I mean a lot - a huge majority) buy HD Ready TVs and think that they are then getting all the channels in HD. Same as when people bought widescreen TVs they then thought that they were receiving widescreen programming on the old analogue channels just because the TV stretched the non-widescreen analogue channels to fill the screen. - Widescreen is only transmitted via digital and then not all channels / programmes. I found that 70% of people who had widescreen TVs didn't even have their digital Set-Top-Box or DVD player set correctly - they had them set to 4:3 Centre-Cut-Out and then stretched that to fill the screen instead of setting them to 16:9 - Widescreen.

    An HD Ready or even a Full HD TV just means the panel is capable of displaying an HD picture and has the correct inputs for a HD source - that's a blu-ray player (the defunct HD-DVD player) a satellite receiver and cable (cable only having one HD channel and just a few HD VOD programmes).

    There will eventually be HD on terrestrial digital, however an HD Ready or Full HD TV bought today, a few years back or even in the near future won't be able to receive the HD terrestrial digital service with its built-in tuner, as it requires a different transmission setup, so you'll need either an external HD capable Freeview box or wait for TVs to be built with the updated DTT tuner that can pick up HD.

    It is great to see you questioning the matter, it shows awareness.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Len Malandro (U11156281) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Should the BBC be providing a subscription only service?

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Chris (U1572381) on Monday, 26th May 2008


    Should the BBC be providing a subscription only service?
     


    The BBC in the UK don't provide a subscription service.

    BBC HD is Free To Air on satellite, so whether you have a Freesat box, FTA satellite receiver or a Sky HD box and not paying a subscription you get BBC HD.

    With cable it's different, cable has to carry the channel, however you can't get cable without paying cable some money as you are only renting the box as such.

    Remember with satellite you don't have to pay a subscription to get 200 of the channels and BBC HD is one of them.

    With a Sky box you have always been able just to have the box and no subscription and just use it for the free channels.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by RosebudXanadu (U9513088) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Thanks for the responses - really informative.

    Isn't the whole thing a bit of a rip off ?

    Everyone will now need to buy and have dishes erected for Freesat.

    I've just spent £150 having my aerial upgraded for terrestrial digital !

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by albback (U11643252) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Yes it's a rip off and the TV manufacturers are rubbing their hands together with glee at the thought of all the money they'll make out of the poor unsuspecting UK public when HD freeview comes along.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Len Malandro (U11156281) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    #6

    Freesat? You still have to buy a dish and a box… about £200 minimum at a rough estimate. It’s a fair old surcharge to watch a supposedly free service. Just like their basic digital channels, if they’re isn’t a reduced TV licence for a those who can't acess them the BBC are essentially getting the poor to subside the wealthy?

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    If you look at the schedules, there's no programmes on BBC HD that aren't on the other BBC channels. You're not missing it out on anything and frankly I don't see what else the BBC can do. If you have a big HD TV, you can afford to get a dish.

    (and if you have a tiny HD TV, you don't need HD!)

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Chris (U1572381) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008


    Freesat? You still have to buy a dish and a box… about £200 minimum at a rough estimate. It’s a fair old surcharge to watch a supposedly free service. Just like their basic digital channels, if they’re isn’t a reduced TV licence for a those who can't access them the BBC are essentially getting the poor to subside the wealthy?
     


    You still have to pay a couple of hundred pounds plus for a TV. I don't know fancy having to spend money on buying a TV to watch a supposedly free TV service! smiley - erm

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by RosebudXanadu (U9513088) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    You're not missing it out on anything and frankly I don't see what else the BBC can do. If you have a big HD TV, you can afford to get a dish. 

    Don't think that's the point to be honest.

    The BBC banged on for about a year about the digital signal and advising us to be ready by buying set top boxes and upgrading aerials etc etc... But no mention of HD being only available on Satellite !

    It's not just a dish - there's a one off payment plus a different set top box to take HD. When you've already spent money upgrading your aerial, in my case £200, then I think I've been misinformed.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Len Malandro (U11156281) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    :quote: If you have a big HD TV, you can afford to get a dish :quote:

    That’s very presumptuous mangad. It’s just as likely that by the time you’ve forked out for a big HD TV the kitty is bare.

    What the BBC could do is not broadcast HD until it’s available on Freeview, instead of letting private companies charge licence payers for the privilege of experiencing BBC programmes in HD.

    I’m inclined to agree with MrsDracy, the public have been misled.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    GIven there was no national strategy for HD on digital terrestrial until very recently, what would you have had the BBC say? "Whoops, just don't buy HD at all!"?

    Despite popular belief, the fact is no one in the UK owns a HD capable TV that can pick up DTT HD signals anyway. If it was launched tomorrow, you'd STILL need to buy a new set top box of easily a cost of £150 given that's what the Freesat ones cost.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Len Malandro (U11156281) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    The BBC should have put some real effort into informing the public about the cost of watching BBC HD programmes. They use up loads of primetime airtime telling viewers what’s coming up next, but when it comes to telling us anything useful they seem to have a different attitude.

    “Despite popular belief, the fact is no one in the UK owns a HD capable TV that can pick up DTT HD” #14

    “A lot of people (and I mean a lot - a huge majority) buy HD Ready TVs and think that they are then getting all the channels in HD” #4

    The widespread ignorance about accessing BBC HD proves the BBC have made a pig’s ear of educating the public?

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    People were busy buying HD TVs way before BBC HD was even launched yet alone promoted. I don't think it's a particularly appropriate place to put the blame.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Nick Knight (U1390196) on Thursday, 29th May 2008

    Sorry, but will we all need to pay the £200 for the Freesat (if we don't have Sky HD, etc.) at some stage to get HD, or will this be superseded when HD is on Freeview? If the latter then I'll wait rather than paying extra money to get something a bit before everyone else, unless Freesat has significantly more channels.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Thursday, 29th May 2008

    Freesat has signifcantly more bandwidth available to it so has much greater scope for better quality pictures and more HD services. Arguably Freesat is a better option. Freeview HD certainly won't see the end of Freesat HD.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Nick Knight (U1390196) on Thursday, 29th May 2008

    Noted, thanks. Hopefully they will come down in price in the same way the Freeview boxes did over time.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by RosebudXanadu (U9513088) on Thursday, 29th May 2008

    People were busy buying HD TVs way before BBC HD was even launched yet alone promoted. I don't think it's a particularly appropriate place to put the blame 

    So in your opinion when the BBC were promoting Digital TV and advising us to go out and buy Freeview set top boxes and if necessary upgrade our aerials, they had no plans for HD broadcasting ?


    It's a genuine question as I'm a novice regarding Digital and I've been taking my lead (perhaps naively)from the BBC.

    Surely more options such as satellite dishes could have been given at the time.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Thursday, 29th May 2008

    Well Digital TV in this country launched in 1998. Whilst the BBC may have had a feeling it might one day it might do HD stuff, it certainly had no plans in 1998 and there were no HD TV sets on sale then. The broadcasting authorities and the government didn't have HD TV on their radars at that point.

    It's only relatively recently that HD sets have appeared on the market and the first public trials took place in 2006.

    There will always be something new on the horizon - right now people are talking about Ultra-High definition TV which will make HDTV look completely rubbish. You could stop HD TV now purely on the basis that something some day will come along that's better than it. However given it took about 40 years for HD to get rolled out, you might be in for a long wait.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by RosebudXanadu (U9513088) on Thursday, 29th May 2008

    It's only relatively recently that HD sets have appeared on the market and the first public trials took place in 2006. 

    I'm talking about the BBC ads which were aired during 2007 so if HD was in the pipeline in 2006 ......

    Anyway I do take your point about technology moving at a fast pace.

    Thanks for the crash course on Digital TV.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Len Malandro (U11156281) on Thursday, 29th May 2008

    The BBC launched BBC HD in May 2006. One year later they started a Public Value Test, the results of which make interesting reading. Including the estimated £21.4m per annum it will cost.

    www.bbc.co.uk/bbctru...

    What I found most interesting is the sample size of the PVT. 911 responses is a tiny fraction of the three million households who pay for the BBC, and you have to wonder who responded - probably people with a keen interest in broadcasting technology? I for one was completely unaware the BBC were asking licence payers what they thought about BBC HD.

    Does anyone know how the BBC publicised the HD consultation?

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Friday, 30th May 2008

    Incidentally if anyone thinks £21.4m annual cost for BBC HD is expensive, it's worth comparing with the budget for BBC One which is about £800m smiley - smiley

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Martyn the retired (U1168764) on Friday, 30th May 2008

    Ok, tip for the future. The standard I've seen so far for Ultra High Definition is 1080p (for progressive) which is roughly two times better than 1080i (for interlaced).

    There are now HD sets sold with 1080p native resolution so I'd suggest anyone buying an HD set gets one of these. Blu ray supports this and although somebody will doubtless prove me wrong, I'm not aware of any 1080p blu ray releases - yet.

    Questionable though whether any set bought now would still be working when/if 1080p is transmitted, but there is a fair choice and the price etc of HD sets appears to be tumbling.

    Worthy point here, the HD production standard used by most UK HD production houses is 1080p. They would have to re-equip to go better.

    regards Martyn

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by dave (U2043922) on Friday, 30th May 2008

    you can make your own programmes, you can get HD 1080p cameras now for approx £500 smiley - smiley

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Len Malandro (U11156281) on Friday, 30th May 2008

    Unlike BBC1 the projected reach of BBC HD is only 22% of households, and unlike BBC1, which is on all the time, BBC HD will only be on for nine hours… and if I understand correctly will include no original programming, just higher definition versions of existing programmes.

    £24m to provide one in five households with access to nine hours of repeats. Some might say that’s not a good use of licence payers money.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by dave (U2043922) on Friday, 30th May 2008

    I'd say it's excellent use, as long as it doesn't turn into 9 hrs of eastenders etc smiley - doh like BBC3

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Friday, 30th May 2008

    A few pertinent facts - we at home can now buy equipment which can display something more technologically advanced than the broadcasters can deliver content to.

    Were there colour TVs in lots of home before the BBC Started to transmit ? NO
    Likewise Teletext, Stereo Sound , Digital, Widescreen .. so the HD situation is a great change - we have the equipment and say why cannot the BBC broadcast to it ?

    But there is now the technology becoming available to broadcast HD within the European Multichannel market .
    BUT the Regulator OFCOM has decoded that it will sell off the Territorial frequency rather than allow HD to add to the existing SD service.
    ( the Frequency plan is for 8 Muxes and only teh existing 6 are to be used) More over they have directed one MUX operator to change totally what it will be offering on that Mux... so that it is HD only .... and with no guarantee that there will be channel wishing t fill up the mux.

    I do not think it is a good idea ...!
    and I was the MD of that mux operator I woudl be demanding compensation.... after all it is a Limited company has the licence.

    In a multiplatform world we get TV and radio by a number of ways - and Satelite give nearly universal coverage .. Terrestrially Crystal Place covers about one fifth of the UK population... and to get 98.5% needs over 1000 transmitters.

    so it is a difficult issue -
    but with more humour you have had HD since 1936 - it says so on Alexandra Palace - it was 405 lines which was HD compared to 240

    And the Japanese have UHDTV roughly 8000 pixels by 4000 - 16 times current HD .. but they target it being on air in 2025.... it has 22.4 sound
    I hope that Martyn can go out to Amsterdam to see it this September.





    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by designengineer (U11181100) on Friday, 30th May 2008

    I notice the on-terrestrial-TV and internet ads for BBC HD show screens totally devoid of DOGs - does that mean BBC HDTV is mercifully free of these excresences? Or is in fact the resolution degraded in patches on the screen?

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by the bfg (U6141852) on Friday, 30th May 2008

    The 'laggards' on this board who are not in favour in HD, probably don't have it or have not really seen it working properly on a good plasma.

    It tranfroms the viewing experience. Technology is moving fast so what is the point of standing still. In time it will be the norm and prices will tumble.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by dave (U2043922) on Saturday, 31st May 2008

    "does that mean BBC HDTV is mercifully free of these excresences?"

    sadly not, but they seem less prominent than others. Not having them would be best.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by royalOHMYWORD (U12215077) on Thursday, 5th June 2008

    Just like to get some facts right here:

    1.HD is not the BBC's fault. Its Mr Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung, Philips, etc who wanted a new trick to sell more TV's. The Beeb are simply responding to the change the TV manufactures have inflicted on us.

    2."If you can afford a big HD TV you can afford Freesat." Erm if you want/need to buy a new TV these days I'm affraid you have to buy HD flat panels as (again) the TV makers have stopped making old school standard def CRT aka "tube" TV's. Despite the fact that some would argue old tube TV's actually produce better pictures than most HD sets...

    3.One poster recommends we should all buy 1080p aka "Full HD" TV's to be sure of been future proof. Hmmm here we go playing the "numbers game". Currently all the HD broadcasts on Sky, Cable or Freesat are in 720p/1080i "HD Ready," and will stay that way as it takes up too much bandwidth to do 1080p. Only Blue Ray movies and a handful of videogames are in 1080p at the moment-so unless you're interested in those I wouldn't be so quick to pay those extra £'s for Full HD at this stage.

    4.How many of you have seen a HD broadcast/film in action? The main picture improvement is most HD TV's simply don't like having to "upscale" (i.e.re-draw to fit the higher resolution)old standard def broadcasts as the new TV is built for HD. For example, you'll find on a HDTV all your old DVD's will look jagged around the edges so you have to either buy a new DVD player that can "upscale" them to HD or buy a Blue Ray player and buy new fangled HD movie discs.

    I would say you only really see the HD difference on those big 37inch+ screens. Standard def starts looking a bit fuzzy around the edges at that size, so HD just brings everything back into focus.

    If it all sounds like a cynical exercise to make us part with our cash-see point 1.



    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Friday, 6th June 2008

    2."If you can afford a big HD TV you can afford Freesat." Erm if you want/need to buy a new TV these days I'm affraid you have to buy HD flat panels as (again) the TV makers have stopped making old school standard def CRT aka "tube" TV's. Despite the fact that some would argue old tube TV's actually produce better pictures than most HD sets... 

    Not so. You'll find CRT TVs on sale by several retailers. True you might not get much choice, but they are there - I've just found a JVC 28" on Argos's website for example.


    Also note, I said "big HD TV". If you're buying a 28" flatscreen, then frankly you don't need HD and as such it's not an issue.

    If you can however afford a 40", 50" or similar, then frankly, you can afford Freesat. No one /needs/ a TV of that size after all.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by royalOHMYWORD (U12215077) on Friday, 6th June 2008

    OK maybe I phrased a few things badly in that post, sorry ranting but the whole HD thing does my head in.

    Yes you can still buy CRT TV's but they aren't of the best quality. They're all cheapo sets that look slightly wobbly+blurry I'm afraid-far worse than my dear old mid 90's CRT. So if you want something approaching a good picture you're forced to go for LCD or Plasma now.

    I'm speaking with a slight chip on my shoulder because sadly the dear old CRT is wearing out and I had to buy a new set recently. I settled on a big Panasonic Plasma-its a great set. But for the reasons above I feel like I was forced into buying it. Personally I cannot stand overly bright cartoon colours+inabilty to produce deep dark blacks of LCD so that wasn't an option either.

    And whilst I'm largly happy with my purchase I can't get around the simple fact that to get the best possible picture out of the set I will have to fork out more cash for more AV kit such as Freesat.

    Trying to factor this slightly back on topic, people used to take it for granted that you just plugged in a TV, it worked and you got a great picture. Now TV has become a mess of different technologies and different resolutions. I can see the whole market imploding eventually as the public confusion reaches saturation point!

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Sue_Aitch (U3336990) on Saturday, 7th June 2008

    Good CRTs are still available second hand: Search engine "Kit out your house for next to nothing" for a Gadget Show article, dated February 2007, on finding a bargain!

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by the bfg (U6141852) on Saturday, 7th June 2008

    I'm speaking with a slight chip on my shoulder because sadly the dear old CRT is wearing out and I had to buy a new set recently. I settled on a big Panasonic Plasma-its a great set. But for the reasons above I feel like I was forced into buying it. Personally I cannot stand overly bright cartoon colours+inabilty to produce deep dark blacks of LCD so that wasn't an option either.

    And whilst I'm largely happy with my purchase I can't get around the simple fact that to get the best possible picture out of the set I will have to fork out more cash for more AV kit such as Freesat

    Trying to factor this slightly back on topic, people used to take it for granted that you just plugged in a TV, it worked and you got a great picture. Now TV has become a mess of different technologies and different resolutions. I can see the whole market imploding eventually as the public confusion reaches saturation point!
     

    You certainly did the right thing. Panny Plasmas are very good and Plasma seems to handle SD broadcasts much better than LCD as we move through the transition phase ofthe new technology.

    However, for a little over £100 you can now enjoy BBC HD via Fressat. Believe me you won't regret it. Use an HDMI cable for best results.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by 2will2348 (U12260853) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    If you have a hd ready tv you cannot recieve hd. You need a source like a blu-ray player for hd dvds or freesat, virgin or sky for hd shows because all hd shows are sent through another channel or a red button which are only available through a cable or sateliete you must also remeber if your tv isn't connected to your hd box through a hdmi cable then you will still be getting standard definition even on the hd channels. The reason behind this is that aeriels aren't strong enough to recieve hd content just like scart cables aren't strong enough to send hd content.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Chris (U1572381) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    Of course aerials are strong enough to receive HD channels - this is why HD will be launching eventually on Freeview.

    Whether the channel is digital or analogue the aerial is no different, the digital signal is still transmitted in the same way as the analogue, it's only what's in that which is different.

    At the moment digital terrestrial is on a low power as not to interfere with analogue, hence you need an aerial that has higher gain - the same aerial you'd need for analogue if you were in a weak signal area.

    HD Ready means the panel is capable of displaying at least 720 lines and has an input to accept HD.

    Full HD means the panel can display 1080 lines.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    Yes you can still buy CRT TV's but they aren't of the best quality. They're all cheapo sets that look slightly wobbly+blurry I'm afraid-far worse than my dear old mid 90's CRT. So if you want something approaching a good picture you're forced to go for LCD or Plasma now. 

    No they're not. It's true that there's some dodgy small, cheap portable CRTs on the market (just as there with flatscreens), however there are still some very decent CRTs out there.

    I know this for a fact as I bought one 6 months ago.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by RosebudXanadu (U9513088) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    Of course aerials are strong enough to receive HD channels - this is why HD will be launching eventually on Freeview.
    At the moment digital terrestrial is on a low power as not to interfere with analogue, hence you need an aerial that has higher gain - the same aerial you'd need for analogue if you were in a weak signal area. 


    BexTech !

    Thanks ! That's all I wanted to know! OP confusion is over.

    I was a bit frustrated about Freesat as I can't receive a satellite signal because of tall trees blocking the signal and I cancelled Sky because more often than not I lost the signal.

    Only 4 years before I can use my HD ready TV !

    By then it will be a dinosaur smiley - smiley

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by sirlewis62 (U9428107) on Thursday, 17th July 2008

    Considering the way that Digital was going to change our viewing choices, I think we can all claim to have been ripped off good and proper. There is no more choice, only more stations vying to fill their schedules with ropey pap. Here in East Anglia we are still condemned to watch TV from Hull and Leeds unless holidaying in Southern Spain where Look East is the BBC's regional news channel!!!

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Thursday, 17th July 2008

    Sorry, but there's plenty of choice. It's just that that choice doesn't meet your standards! If however you want to watch near constant Big Brother, or Friends over and over and over and over and over again, you're fine.

    Personally I couldn't imagine going back to five channels on analogue - and it's one channel that makes the difference. It's BBC Four. The rest? Who cares.

    If you've got one digital channel you watch a lot, then you're laughing.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by sirlewis62 (U9428107) on Thursday, 17th July 2008

    Sorry, but with viewers like "Mangad the Improbable", it will never be possible to receive a proper broadcasting service. He/She is just a small part of the "I'm alright Jack" coterie of viewers who have such restricted tastes that it is impossible not to satisfy them with basic programming. Anybody who thinks that BBC 4 is sufficient provision, does not have the wit or taste to judge for others what is an acceptable service. I repeat again, Digital, and when it happens HD, has failed to provide the service (so far) that it was envisaged to provide. Many channels are not the answer to the quality problem and if we want quality programming then perhaps five channels is all that it is possible to support.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Thursday, 17th July 2008

    Clearly you miss the point I was trying to make.

    My point was not that "BBC Four is great so SCREW YOU ALL, MOANING SO-AND-SOS, GO GET A LIFE!"

    My point was that the notion that 20 (or 200) odd new digital channels will all please you, is wrong. It won't happen.

    What you'll find instead is that if anything, there's probably only 1 or 2 digital channels that you'll regularly watch.

    Like me and BBC Four.


    But if you want to know why digital isn't doing it for you, it's probably because a decent TV channel is expensive and as such, there will never be that many around. People pay hundreds of pounds a year to Sky or Virgin and still mostly watch BBC One and ITV.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by mangad the improbable (U3478096) on Thursday, 17th July 2008

    Oh and when I say a decent TV channel is expensive, I mean E X P E N S I V E.

    BBC One alone costs about £900m a year. ITV1 probably costs about the same amount.

    Most digital channels get no where near that kind of spend. E4 in contrast has a programme budget of £60m. And that's one of the well funded digital channels.

    No one is going to take the crown off the analogue channels, because frankly no one can afford it.

    Report message46

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.