BBC1 HD
Bill Wright
showing the same prog as BBC1 SD with a 5 sec lag.
Bill
Light of Aria
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:iabrcq$6i1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Has been showing the "Sorry no regional programmes" card and is now
> showing the same prog as BBC1 SD with a 5 sec lag.
>
> Bill
Does it have DOG shit on it?
David
"Light of Aria" <light...@2009.no.valid.domain.com> wrote in message
news:iabuij$ra2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes says BBC1 HD
But it is not same programme as BBC1 SD
It is an animated program and Landgirls is on SD.
Regards
David
David
"David" <david...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:iabuus$p4j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Light of Aria" <light...@2009.no.valid.domain.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Does it have DOG shit on it?
>>
> Yes says BBC1 HD
> But it is not same programme as BBC1 SD
> It is an animated program and Landgirls is on SD.
I have a Panasonic Freesat and using "other programs" to view it, is there
more than one version of BBC1 HD, if yes please quote me tuning details.
( Seems to be two of BBC HD.)
I suppose the big step will be to start transmit Freesat 109 and have 108 as
well with BBC HD until next week and during the ONE Show it will change on
108 to BBC1 HD.
Regards
David
Bill Wright
> But it is not same programme as BBC1 SD
It was, earlier. Now (15.12) it's just a card.
Bill
Bill Wright
Yes. It's bright orange except for the word 'one' which is rapidly going
through a rainbow sequence. It occupies the whole of the top right hand
quadrant. I suppose it could be quite annoying.
Bill
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
LOL!!!!!!!!
You'd have got him too, but the BBC never put DOGs top-right.
Cheers,
David.
Scott
wrote:
>Has been showing the "Sorry no regional programmes" card and is now
>showing the same prog as BBC1 SD with a 5 sec lag.
>
Not appeared on Blackhill as yet. Are they testing on selected
transmitters only?
David
"Scott" <spiced.p...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:tadjc6hfv4r50f2v6...@4ax.com...
Oh it is terrestrial is it that the OP was on about, I had assumed Satellite
in my reply.
Regards
David
Bill Wright
Drat!
Bill
Scott
wrote:
I assumed terrestrial but it could be either. OP could have been
clearer in his posting.
That said, I would expect if they are testing satellite they would
also be testing terrestrial since terrestrial is launching next
Wednesday.
Alan White
wrote:
>That said, I would expect if they are testing satellite they would
>also be testing terrestrial since terrestrial is launching next
>Wednesday.
So is the launch on Freesat.
--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather
Bill Wright
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:44:40 +0100, "David" <david...@tesco.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Scott" <spiced.p...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:tadjc6hfv4r50f2v6...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:47:18 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has been showing the "Sorry no regional programmes" card and is now
>>>> showing the same prog as BBC1 SD with a 5 sec lag.
>>>>
>>> Not appeared on Blackhill as yet. Are they testing on selected
>>> transmitters only?
>> Oh it is terrestrial is it that the OP was on about, I had assumed Satellite
>> in my reply.
>> Regards
>> David
>
> I assumed terrestrial but it could be either. OP could have been
> clearer in his posting.
Oh leave me alone! I've got man flu! I can't think of everything! Anyway
it was satellite.
Bill
j r powell
>
> I assumed terrestrial but it could be either. OP could have been
> clearer in his posting.
It's on satellite, 28.2E, but not on the Sky EPG yet.
Details are: 10.847 GHz, SR 22.0, FEC 5/6
SID is 6941.
This DVB-S1 transponder is currently carrying two versions of BBC HD along
with the BBC1 HD feed, so bitrates must be low.
On a vaguely-related note, Sky HD users currently cannot manually add channels
from DVB-S2 transponders, as I found out to my annoyance recently when I tried
connecting my box to a dish pointing at 19.2E. I could only view one HD feed
from 19.2 as a result (Einsfestival HD Promo), but this did allow me to watch
a 720p transmission on our TV set for the first time.
jamie.
--
j r powell
"j r powell" <nos...@private.zz> wrote in message
news:iad6rm$9o4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> "Scott" <spiced.p...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:5tmjc6l9gglirsgdt...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I assumed terrestrial but it could be either. OP could have been
>> clearer in his posting.
>
> It's on satellite, 28.2E, but not on the Sky EPG yet.
> Details are: 10.847 GHz, SR 22.0, FEC 5/6
> SID is 6941.
Forgot to add... vertical polarisation.
jamie.
--
John Legon
>It's on satellite, 28.2E, but not on the Sky EPG yet.
>Details are: 10.847 GHz, SR 22.0, FEC 5/6
>SID is 6941.
>
>This DVB-S1 transponder is currently carrying two versions of BBC HD along
>with the BBC1 HD feed, so bitrates must be low.
Um, not exactly. BBC HD and the other version (6945) have the same
audio and video PIDs in the transport stream.
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:iabrcq$6i1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
That's you in Jamie's kill file for pointing out another one of his
silly mistakes! ;-)
Cheers,
David.
Max
<light...@2009.no.valid.domain.com> wrote:
Yes it will.
https://twitter.com/naglerhd/status/28970393415
She seems proud of it. I'll stick to the SD version, whilst the HD
version has moron message grafity'd on it.
Bill Wright
> I thought you knew that HD stood for hideously delayed.
>
> Brian
>
Bill
Mark Carver
> Also: "Ongoing discussion on right size for #bbc one hd DOG. Remains to be
> seen whether principle or pragmatism win out"
> (https://twitter.com/naglerhd)
>
> WTF does she mean by that? Which one out of "principle or pragmatism"
> means "NO DOG AT ALL"? It's almost phrased as if to say "in principle I
> want a 1/4 screen size solid animated DOG but we might have to be
> pragmatic and break them in gently with an 1/8 screen size transparent
> DOG".
>
> Why wasn't it "Ongoing discussion on #bbc one hd DOG or no DOG. Remains to
> be seen whether marketing or licence-fee-paying viewers win out"...
She's a medja marketing person, they're jumpered up completely differently to
us normal human beings.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Steve Thackery
> Yes it will.
Oh, for fuck's sake! What is wrong with those stupid people at the
BBC?
SteveT
Scott
wrote:
>
>
Any idea when the new channel will appear on the Freeview EPG? I
believe it is due to launch on Wednesday.
Ian
<spiced.p...@virgin.net> writes
No, but it has appeared in the Non-Freesat epg, on 5435,
showing info about launch, Nov 3rd, and channels for BBC HD,
" Freesat 109, Freeview 54, Sky 169 and Virgin Media 187".
This may suggest that BBC 1 HD will be on Freesat 108 and Freeview
channel 50.
--
Ian
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> Mike Henry wrote:
> > Also: "Ongoing discussion on right size for #bbc one hd DOG. Remains to be
> > seen whether principle or pragmatism win out"
> > (https://twitter.com/naglerhd)
>
> > WTF does she mean by that? Which one out of "principle or pragmatism"
> > means "NO DOG AT ALL"? It's almost phrased as if to say "in principle I
> > want a 1/4 screen size solid animated DOG but we might have to be
> > pragmatic and break them in gently with an 1/8 screen size transparent
> > DOG".
>
> > Why wasn't it "Ongoing discussion on #bbc one hd DOG or no DOG. Remains to
> > be seen whether marketing or licence-fee-paying viewers win out"...
>
> She's a medja marketing person, they're jumpered up completely differently to
> us normal human beings.
It's spread far further than that. I've had someone from BBC R&D talk
to me very seriously about why DOGs are essential.
You've got to admit: he'll probably get on very well being able to toe
the party line and talk complete BS like that.
To be fair, the argument wasn't BS. It went like this: BBC funding is
always under threat. Lots of viewers claim to "never watch the BBC",
which undermines the license fee. Whereas the truth is that most of
these viewers do watch the BBC, but they forget they watch it, or
don't know they're watching the BBC when they are. So if we put our
logo on all the channels, they can't forget, and will realise what
good value for money they're getting.
My answer was we should go back to the 1930s, where such stupid people
knew to keep their mouths shut, no one was interested in their
opinions, and no one would take any notice of what they said. Rather
than the 21st century attitude of running things to cater for the
lowest common denominator, and ignoring the demands of anything better/
higher.
I didn't put it quite like that, but his response was basically that
if the BBC did that, then many people would go and watch ITV and/or
Sky, and there'd be no publicly funded BBC left. A kind of "we have to
half wreck it ourselves to stop someone else coming along and
annihilating it completely" argument.
Cheers,
David.
Bigguy2010
Guy
David
"Bigguy2010" <Fa...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:8j7p3l...@mid.individual.net...
> Virgin Media has a place-holder page on ch187 on cable.
>
Nothing on my Freesat on 109, is Freesat the only platform without any
tests/promotions?
Will Freesat sets need a reset or rescan?
(Or is it just Freesat being behind again.)
Regards
David
PS the caption my Freesat set on Other Channels does say on Freesat 109.
David
Just had a look at the Freesat web site.
"Important news for freesat customers
You can expect to see BBC One HD added to the EPG at Channel 108 from 7pm
onwards on Wednesday 3rd November. BBC HD channel will move to Channel 109.
These changes will update automatically on freesat boxes and TVs.
To prompt these changes after 7pm, put your box or TV into standby for one
minute, and then turn it back on. The EPG will then update. Customers with
Humax boxes and LG TVs will need to accept the new channel prompt."
(Now not my spelling mistakes and bad English I just cut and pasted.)
I'm not too clear if they mean it all automatic or part automatic or if you
watching 108 at the time or another station, or not got TV/box on.
Regards
David
Peter Duncanson
>
>
>Just had a look at the Freesat web site.
>
>"Important news for freesat customers
>You can expect to see BBC One HD added to the EPG at Channel 108 from 7pm
>onwards on Wednesday 3rd November. BBC HD channel will move to Channel 109.
>These changes will update automatically on freesat boxes and TVs.
>
>To prompt these changes after 7pm, put your box or TV into standby for one
>minute, and then turn it back on. The EPG will then update. Customers with
>Humax boxes and LG TVs will need to accept the new channel prompt."
>
>(Now not my spelling mistakes and bad English I just cut and pasted.)
BBC One HD is currently visible on a Humax Freesat box in "non-Freesat"
mode. The picture is a red version of the BBC interprogramme stuff
(swimmers moving in a circle, dogs weaving in and out of posts,
helicopter taking off from a circular helipad, etc.) The text says "BBC
One HD will be launching here with the One Show on 3 November". Apart
from that there is the BBC One logo centre-screen and the channel
numbers on Freesat, Freeview, Sky and Virgin Media.
>
>I'm not too clear if they mean it all automatic or part automatic or if you
>watching 108 at the time or another station, or not got TV/box on.
>
What I'm expecting with a Humax box is to switch it into standby for one
minute at or after 7pm, bring it out of standby, it will say that
channels may have changed and will offer to do a scan, if I say yes or
leave the message to time out it will do an update scan which will make
the necessary changes.
It won't matter what channel it was on before putting it into standby.
I hope the "geniuses" in the BBC have thought this through properly. It
seem to me that there will be a definite possibility of people missing
the first few minutes of the One Show while their STBs or TVs do the
update. I don't watch the One Show so that won't worry me.
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
David
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:qaqtc6tl9aev6ndc1...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Nov >
> I hope the "geniuses" in the BBC have thought this through properly.
Well I do not think they have!
I just can't understand why 109 is not doing BBC HD now, yes a duplicate of
108, so on Wednesday we have nothing to do with continuing with BBC HD on
one channel at least and we have the assurance that 109 is ok.
Regards
David
The dog from that film you saw
"David" wrote in message news:iams3r$ol1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I just can't understand why 109 is not doing BBC HD now, yes a duplicate of
108, so on Wednesday we have nothing to do with continuing with BBC HD on
one channel at least and we have the assurance that 109 is ok.
Regards
David
personally, i'd rather they gave me the option of mapping bbc 1 hd to 101
and itv hd to 103.
-- Gareth.
that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!
Peter Duncanson
I can't think of any obvious technical reason for not doing that. The
transmission capacity exists and is being use for a "coming soon"
picture. It could be put into the Freesat channel list and EPG in
advance of its starting to broadcast BBC One HD.
Not doing that seems to be a strange way of doing things, and one that
is likely to cause annoyance among keen but less technically minded
viewers.
David
"The dog from that film you saw" <d...@removethisbitbtinternet.com> wrote in
message news:8j8bck...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "
> personally, i'd rather they gave me the option of mapping bbc 1 hd to 101
> and itv hd to 103.
>
>
>
Moving channels that was something these "Experts" decided not to put in the
Spec. or did they just forget.
My TV maker when I complained about its lack of the feature told me they
were not allowed to include it by Freesat.
Regards
David
David
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:56vtc694o28bjiv4n...@4ax.com...
How are the other Platforms doing such as Sky, Freeview and Virgin Media
have they got their numbers and transmissions going in advance?
Regards
David
Mark Carver
> I didn't put it quite like that, but his response was basically that
> if the BBC did that, then many people would go and watch ITV and/or
> Sky, and there'd be no publicly funded BBC left. A kind of "we have to
> half wreck it ourselves to stop someone else coming along and
> annihilating it completely" argument.
It's worthy of something Douglas Adams might have written for THHGTTG.
Bill Wright
> davidr...@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I didn't put it quite like that, but his response was basically that
>> if the BBC did that, then many people would go and watch ITV and/or
>> Sky, and there'd be no publicly funded BBC left. A kind of "we have to
>> half wreck it ourselves to stop someone else coming along and
>> annihilating it completely" argument.
>
> It's worthy of something Douglas Adams might have written for THHGTTG.
Or Heller, for Catch 22.
Bill
Ian
<david...@tesco.net> writes
OK, there must be a technical reason, and I'd be happy to hear it, but
why can't they just "add" BBC1 HD on 109, leaving BBC HD alone?
--
Ian
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> In <017b8c7d-1a27-4b27-830a-0b08e438f...@t13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >To be fair, the argument wasn't BS. It went like this: BBC funding is
> >always under threat. Lots of viewers claim to "never watch the BBC",
> >which undermines the license fee. Whereas the truth is that most of
> >these viewers do watch the BBC, but they forget they watch it, or
> >don't know they're watching the BBC when they are. So if we put our
> >logo on all the channels, they can't forget, and will realise what
> >good value for money they're getting.
>
> the screen in the first 10 seconds of every programme. It's a valid
> argument in that case.
That's more for when the content finds its way onto other (especially
non-BBC) channels.
> It's not an argument for extending this to a permanent DOG.
Well, accepting the "our critics are idiots" argument, it is - these
people might miss the start of the programme, or forget.
> >My answer was we should go back to the 1930s, where such stupid people
> >knew to keep their mouths shut, no one was interested in their
> >opinions, and no one would take any notice of what they said. Rather
> >than the 21st century attitude of running things to cater for the
> >lowest common denominator, and ignoring the demands of anything better/
> >higher.
>
> >I didn't put it quite like that, but his response was basically that
> >if the BBC did that, then many people would go and watch ITV and/or
> >Sky, and there'd be no publicly funded BBC left. A kind of "we have to
> >half wreck it ourselves to stop someone else coming along and
> >annihilating it completely" argument.
>
> I hope you put him right after that?
What, you think I could have convinced him and changed BBC policy on
the spot by reasoned argument?
I shall restrain myself from commenting. I still regularly talk to
folks from the Beeb (though not usually the pretentious ones!).
> What was said next?
I went and looked at a demo of archiving all the BBC's terrestrial
broadcasts, including BBCi, to HDD, and providing an interface to be
able to experience an as-live recreation of the "red button" feature
at some point in the future.
> After all, if
> what he said was true, the BBC would have permanent DOGs on SD BBC1 and
> BBC2 analogue+digital *right now* and would have done so since 1998. But
> instead, they know full well why they daren't put permanent DOGs on BBC1
> and BBC2 analogue+digital.
True - but by putting them on the HD version, and eventually phasing
out the SD version, they've got what they want.
I suspect the tide might turn - not such that the DOG is removed - but
just _maybe_ by making it optional. You never know.
Cheers,
David.
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> "The dog from that film you saw" <d...@removethisbitbtinternet.com> wrote in
>
> > "
> > personally, i'd rather they gave me the option of mapping bbc 1 hd to 101
> > and itv hd to 103.
>
> Moving channels that was something these "Experts" decided not to put in the
> Spec. or did they just forget.
> My TV maker when I complained about its lack of the feature told me they
> were not allowed to include it by Freesat.
Exactly - it's not a technical decision at all. AFAICT it's trivial
for STB manufacturers to allow you to move channels, but if they offer
that facility, they cannot used the Freesat branding (or, "legally",
the Freesat EPG).
Cheers,
David.
Mark Carver
>> Moving channels that was something these "Experts" decided not to put in the
>> Spec. or did they just forget.
>> My TV maker when I complained about its lack of the feature told me they
>> were not allowed to include it by Freesat.
>
> Exactly - it's not a technical decision at all. AFAICT it's trivial
> for STB manufacturers to allow you to move channels, but if they offer
> that facility, they cannot used the Freesat branding (or, "legally",
> the Freesat EPG).
This is the problem. If the rules are more relaxed, as they are for
Freeview, where on some receivers you can re-map the EPG positions, then
you also run the risk of something non complaint being introduced, c.f.
the mess with split NIT and 2k/8k operability (is that a real word ?).
Damned if they do, damned if they don't !
Ian
<c7ab0a93-67a5-4c86...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
"davidr...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> writes
The BBC channels could be easily distinguishable by being the only
channels without DOGS.
--
Ian
Brian Mc
: I hope you put him right after that? What was said next? After all, if
: what he said was true, the BBC would have permanent DOGs on SD BBC1 and
: BBC2 analogue+digital *right now* and would have done so since 1998. But
: instead, they know full well why they daren't put permanent DOGs on BBC1
: and BBC2 analogue+digital.
I can clearly recall the BBC putting a DOG on DIGITAL BBC1 (and BBC2) when
they started in 1998! It took a major effort the to get this decision
reversed!
Mark Carver
BBC 1, 2, 24, and Choice (now BBC 3) all launched on Sky Digital on Oct
1 1998 with DOGs. The OnDigital launch was Nov 15th 1998.
The DOGs on BBC 1, 2, and Choice were removed after many viewer
complaints on Dec 1st 1998. ISTR that was Greg Dyke's first day as BBC
DG, and he personally ordered their removal ? The BBC Choice DOG crept
back on about a year later ISTR ?
C4 added a DOG on the digital versions of C4 at Easter 1999. Again lots
of outrage, and that was removed a few weeks later.
C5 have had a DOG on analogue and digital since the outset, but there
was a 3 or 4 year gap with that, 2003-7 ?
Gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't 'LIKE' dogs but the BBC HD one is mostly not a problem to me. It is
there, but you have to look for it. A lot of the time it is quite faint.
I think there is a more important commercial reason for dogs, piracy. It
watermarks the broadcast. I have seen a copy of a dvd on sale at car boots
with the German Disney Channel HD version of a film on it. ( the dvd is not
HD). But the picture quality is quite good for a pirate .
Gary
Brian Mc
: The DOGs on BBC 1, 2, and Choice were removed after many viewer
: complaints on Dec 1st 1998. ISTR that was Greg Dyke's first day as BBC
: DG, and he personally ordered their removal ?
If it was Greg Dyke's first day he may have been asked to rubber-stamp
some, already made, committee decision to remove the "digital DOGS" - I
very much doubt if it was done without such a concensus!
However these days the "DOG loving marketing types" seem to have gained
more of a foothold in the BBC!
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> I don't 'LIKE' dogs but the BBC HD one is mostly not a problem to me. It is
> there, but you have to look for it. A lot of the time it is quite faint.
>
> I think there is a more important commercial reason for dogs, piracy. It
> watermarks the broadcast. I have seen a copy of a dvd on sale at car boots
> with the German Disney Channel HD version of a film on it. ( the dvd is not
> HD). But the picture quality is quite good for a pirate .
This idea make no sense at all, but it gets repeated so often that
some people really must believe it.
Here are several reasons why the "it prevents piracy" idea doesn't
work...
1. The most "valuable" content goes out on BBC One. The SD version has
no DOG. DVDs are SD.
2. The semi-transparent non-animated BBC DOGs can be removed
perfectly. If a pirate wishes to remove them, they can do.
3. Most of the content will _only_ air in full height anamorphic 16x9
with english language, no hard subtitles, 50Hz video on the BBC.
There's no need to "trace" the video or "prove" it aired on the BBC -
that's the only place it could have come from.
4. People happily produce, sell, and buy pirate DVDs with DOGs on
them, so it hardly stops piracy.
5. There are several invisible and virtually unremovable ways of
watermarking video and audio.
6. There are several robust ways of fingerprinting video and audio.
7. Most of the content with any value is released on DVD shortly after
broadcast. This DVD is the ideal source for making pirate/bootleg/
copied DVDs.
It's not an anti-piracy measure, and it never has been. I don't just
mean "it's an anti-piracy measure that doesn't really work" (there are
a few of those!) - I mean "no one who decides to add a DOG does it to
stop piracy, or expects it to stop piracy".
There is sometimes some vague _hope_ that it'll identify BBC content
posted on YouTube (for example) - but this falls down for most of the
reasons above, and the rather more obvious reason that most of the
YouTube encoding options make the DOGs unreadable if not invisible.
btw Gary, your Usenet posting software is still broken.
Cheers,
David.
Roger-r
"j r powell" <nos...@private.zz> wrote in message
news:iad6rm$9o4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> It's on satellite, 28.2E, but not on the Sky EPG yet.
> Details are: 10.847 GHz, SR 22.0, FEC 5/6
> SID is 6941.
>
> This DVB-S1 transponder is currently carrying two versions of BBC HD along
> with the BBC1 HD feed, so bitrates must be low.
>
Something similar to this duplicate channel naming has been the case for
some years on Hotbird with channel VIVA Polska (music video channel) and
Direct 8.
Scanning the transponder with an FTA receiver produces two entries 'VIVA
Polska' and 'VIVA Polska.' Note the addition of a full stop in the second
entry. Both channels refer to the same V/A/PCR PID's (164/96/164) so
there can, IMO, be only one actual data stream. (Lyngsat lists only the
first channel name)
On the basis that those running the transmission know what they are doing,
this dual listing must be done for a reason. But what reason ? If it were
to be more conspicuous in the channel listings of viewers who have every
channel listed, why stop at two and not have ten entries.
A similar dual listing happens with Direct 8 at H/B 12539 H. This time both
channel names and PID's are identical. Happens on more than one brand of
receiver so I don't think it's a receiver peculiarity.
Glyn Morgan
"Roger-r" <decoder...@clara.invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ib8pl1$267$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> ...On the basis that those running the transmission know what they are
> this dual listing must be done for a reason. But what reason ? If it
> were
> to be more conspicuous in the channel listings of viewers who have every
> channel listed, why stop at two and not have ten entries.
>
While I have no knowledge of why this is done by other service providers I
believe that for BBCHD this duplication is there to allow BBCi to test red
button applications before they are launched to the public.
I have no idea what it looks like now but when originally defined,
pre-Freesat, these duplicated services had the same video, audio and
subtitle PIDs but with some different, unique, OpenTv data components. The
test variant then only appeared in a Sky test bouquet (possibly defined in
the BAT, Bouquet Allocation Table) and was only available on the EPG to Sky
STBs with a special Sky test card. The main service being available in the
EPG of the public receiver base. I think there were also some duplicated SD
services on other BBC transponders for the same purpose (ETV1,2 & 3 spring
to mind).
I guess that now something similar is done with Freesat which must have some
other way of pairing test services and test receivers.
Glyn
Count de Monet
can receive Freeview and Freesat), I get two 108 channels one is BBC HD
and the second is Sky text. I also get two 109 channels one is S4C the
other is Mobilizer. It also finds (with a manual single transponder
scan) ITV1 HD on 1262
What's happening with 180 and 109 on my set-up
--
'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth'
Jim
I was re-scanning Hotbird yesterday and noticed this.
The channels have different Service IDs.
Johny B Good
> In message
> <c7ab0a93-67a5-4c86...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> "davidr...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>
> The BBC channels could be easily distinguishable by being the only
> channels without DOGS.
Bingo! That's exactly right! The best part of using the DOGless strategy
is that all the commercial competition now has no choice but to carry on
using DOGs thus making a DOGless BBC broadcast stand out with brilliant
clarity to the viewers who will swiftly come to know that a DOGless
broadcast is a BBC broadcast.
The lack of such irritating DOG crap on the screen becomes a 'trademark'
indicator of quality in itself when all other broadcasters have no choice
but to continue polluting their "program content" with DOG crap for fear
of upsetting their customers[1] who won't be best pleased with the reduced
level of "product"[2] being delivered to them.
[1] The advertising agencies
[2] The viewing audience (Never lose sight of the fact that whenever you
watch a program delivered via a commercial broadcaster, you are the
'product').
--
Regards JB Good
Brian Gaff
channel they are on might not be the best of people to attempt to advertise
too due to their poor memory!
Of course they could be blind like me, but then a dog is of no help there
either!
Incidentally, why has Fiver become five star?
Why has Sky 3become pick?
Do these people really think a change of name is going to affect their
viewing figures?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Johny B Good" <inv...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:op.vse4odcykd9x7s@fred...
Richard Tobin
Brian Gaff <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Incidentally, why has Fiver become five star?
New owner.
> Why has Sky 3become pick?
It must be tricky for Sky. On the one hand they want the advertising
revenue from Freeview channels; on the other hand they want people to
switch to Sky. They need to attract viewers but at the same time have
them think they're missing something by using Freeview. They are
running poster advertisements here which misleadingly suggest that
people need to look at the Sky website to find out about the digital
switchover which is happening this summer.
> Do these people really think a change of name is going to affect their
>viewing figures?
It quite likely does, though I suspect it's more about brand
differentiation. As I said above - they don't want people to think
they can get Sky on Freeview.
-- Richard
Max Demian
news:ilpvbn$2k1f$1...@automatic.inf.ed.ac.uk...
You can still get Sky News on Freeview.
If Pick TV is supposed to be a taster for Sky programmes, surely it should
have Sky in its name, like Sky Extra.
--
Max Demian
Light of Aria
"Max Demian" wrote in message news:8ubj9a...@mid.individual.net...
--
Max Demian
I won't subscribe to Sky whilst the channels come with
a. DOG shit
b. Adverts.
This has been my position since 2000 and will remain so!
Sky's statement "believe in better", is a bit like a religious statement: It
works on some people, but I am like a "doubting Thomas" who must see with my
own eyes. What I see is commercial filled channels, stuffed with adverts and
DOG shit. That's not better, it's worse.
Bill Wright
> Why has Sky 3become pick?
No-one nose.
Bill
(for Brian: that was n-o-s-e not k-n-o-w-s)
MarkU
Yes. I already tend to consider channels with DOGs as low
budget/low quality channels. The BBC should dare to be different.
--
Mark
Albert Ross
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Do these people really think a change of name is going to affect their
>viewing figures?
Yes.
What's even sadder is they may be right.
Stephen Wolstenholme
wrote:
>Yes. I already tend to consider channels with DOGs as low
>budget/low quality channels. The BBC should dare to be different.
BBC3 and BBC4 have DOGs. The rot has set in!
Steve
--
Neural network applications, help and support.
Neural Planner Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
Peter Duncanson
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Sorry, still don't get this dog stuff. Anyone not capable of knowing what
>channel they are on might not be the best of people to attempt to advertise
>too due to their poor memory!
>
>
>Of course they could be blind like me, but then a dog is of no help there
>either!
>
>Incidentally, why has Fiver become five star?
>
> Why has Sky 3become pick?
>
> Do these people really think a change of name is going to affect their
>viewing figures?
>
A change of name might indeed affect viewing figures.
The UKTV company changed the names of its channels to things like Home,
Blighty, Dave, Watch, Gold, Yesterday, etc. This seems to have been
successful.
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
Stephen Wolstenholme
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>The UKTV company changed the names of its channels to things like Home,
>Blighty, Dave, Watch, Gold, Yesterday, etc. This seems to have been
>successful.
I don't think it has been successful as I have never watched any of
the named channels. Perhaps I'm not a typical viewer.
Peter Duncanson
<st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:54:16 +0000, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>The UKTV company changed the names of its channels to things like Home,
>>Blighty, Dave, Watch, Gold, Yesterday, etc. This seems to have been
>>successful.
>
>I don't think it has been successful as I have never watched any of
>the named channels. Perhaps I'm not a typical viewer.
>
I watch the two available on Freeview: Dave and Yesterday which used to
be UKTV G2 and UKTV History respectively.
Dave is mainly repeats of things like QI, Mock the Week, Top Gear, etc.
Andy Champ
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:08:01 -0000, "MarkU"<sp...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Yes. I already tend to consider channels with DOGs as low
>> budget/low quality channels. The BBC should dare to be different.
>
> BBC3 and BBC4 have DOGs. The rot has set in!
>
Seems to me to avoid screen burn the best thing I can do is either stick
to DVDs, or make sure I channel hop.
Can't see why the broadcasters would want either.
Andy
Brian Gregory [UK]
news:54j1o6th1tlk9kome...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:01:30 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme
> <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:54:16 +0000, Peter Duncanson
>><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The UKTV company changed the names of its channels to things like Home,
>>>Blighty, Dave, Watch, Gold, Yesterday, etc. This seems to have been
>>>successful.
>>
>>I don't think it has been successful as I have never watched any of
>>the named channels. Perhaps I'm not a typical viewer.
>>
> I watch the two available on Freeview: Dave and Yesterday which used to
> be UKTV G2 and UKTV History respectively.
Same here. But I used to watch them more, especially Dave and I'm somewhat
losing interest now.
> Dave is mainly repeats of things like QI, Mock the Week, Top Gear, etc.
--
Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
n...@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.