On 25/01/2008, Gareth Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brian, > > It seems to me that one of the reasons this thread is going on so long > is that many of the people in it share a belief which you don't - and > to them it seems so obvious that they haven't bothered to state it > explicitly. Here is what I believe is the major axiom of contention: > "It is impossible to run a broadcast channel precisely to schedule"
As a committed atheist, I don't ever believe anything! As someone who wrote the ITV scheduling system back in 1992, I actually have the experience to know of what I speak, no matter what other people choose to believe. The system I wrote for ITV over 15 years ago worked down to the FRAME - that's 1/25 of a second. That is how channels are scheduled. Most channels are just playout systems, this is particularly true for things like UKTV. Some channels are a mixture of live and recordings (BBC ONE, ITV-1) and these still manage to schedule programmes within second. The only exception is once-a-year news events or sports. There are some totally live channels too, such as NEWS 24. It seems to me that Brian's suggestions make sense if this axiom turns > out to be false. Similarly it seems to me that everyone else's > defence of the status quo is a description of an engineering > work-around designed to compensate for the problems caused by this > axiom holding true. My point was that the schedule on BBC TWO has been deliberately nudged along a few minutes to gain a competitive schedule advantage, and this is being withheld. I could just ask the BBC TWO scheduler if this is the case or not, I suppose. Martin and Brian batted back and forth: > > > If you can show me a broadcast schedule for a major channel which > > > publicly publishes, in advance, the exact start times of their > > > programmes (eg Never Better, Tonight at 2202 on BBC Two), then I'll > > > gladly eat a copy of the Radio Times[1]. > > I have already said that the BBC Radio 4 schedule is to the minute. > > I suspect that Martin's response might well be "Ok - but they don't > actually stick to that schedule". Indeed Steve has already said: > > > I mean, think how often Radio 4 presenters crash the pips. > > This is because they're trying their damndest to stick to a schedule > that's too tight. So they come in late on a regular basis. Just like > Southern Trains, in fact. Running something to a schedule is vital, because if you don't just chuck other people off the air, which would be selfish... News 24 is a great example of a TV channel that can keep to a schedule! And, like trains, broadcast schedules are supposed to be there so people can easily change from one line to another! There are a number of possible solutions to this problem. The one that > seems to have been universally adopted by UK TV networks is to publish > a fuzzy timetable. One that's accurate to about 5 minutes. They can > aim internally for minute-accuracy, but they know they won't get it. > This is OK, because they didn't promise minute-accuracy to the world - > only 5-minute accuracy. This is comparable to the standard practice > when making Hi-Fi equipment. If you build an amp that can cope with an > input range of between x and y (before it blows up), then you'll write > on the box that it can cope with between x+delta and y-delta. That way > there's some tolerance for when things go wrong. The schedule is accurate, but not precise. If you want to make an FOI request for the timetable everyone aims at > internally, then I'm sure you'll get it. But it won't come with any > guarantees. If they were to publish it in the EPG, then people would > complain when it turned out that 99% of the programmes broadcast at > different times to those scheduled. They don't want to imply a > guarantee that they can't keep, so they won't volunteer the > minute-accurate target schedule. Would an EPG be useful if the titles were imprecise? 99% in such environments is terrible. Is that at all helpful? As a justification for doing nothing, yes. I'm just thinking of the user of the PVR systems. Gareth. > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
