On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The decision ultimately rested with the BBC Trust as part of the Public > Value Test. Their conclusions on content were: > > > 3.32 There was considerable support from respondents for our provisional > conclusion that the BBC HD channel should aim always to show programmes > which most benefit from the HD uplift, rather than simply simulcast BBC One > during peak time. We acknowledged in our provisional conclusions that, in > practice, many of the BBC One programmes will represent the best use of HD > capacity. But simulcasting BBC One at prime time could result in the > peak-time transmission on the HD channel of programmes which benefit less > from HD than programmes from other BBC channels that might have higher HD > value. > 3.33 The BBC Executive has told us that "where possible, the core > peak-time 'spine' of BBC One's high impact, modern, popular content" would > be "complemented by high quality HD content from across other channels and > the archive." We recognised the need for the channel to offer a coherent > schedule comprising a mixture of genres. But we reiterate that the channel > should aim to schedule the programmes from across the BBC's portfolio of > channels which would play most effectively to the benefits of HD. Prime-time > scheduling should not be guided solely by the motivation to simulcast BBC > One. > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/consult/hdtv/pvt_final_conclusions.pdf > > That's the decision the BBC management have to work to. At this time, > when there is limited HD content available in the archives (BBC HD isn't > exactly brimming with new programmes at the moment) and not all programming > is being made in HD, then it's argurable that the costs of a second (and > potentially third and fourth) channel aren't worthwhile. >
It still would be better to have four TV streams that are BBC ONE HD, BBC TWO HD, BBC THREE/CBBC HD, BBC FOUR/CBeebie HD which can get the full MPEG4 capacity at the "simulcast" point and then revert to standard (720x576i) mode for the rest of the time. This would cost no more than providing the single HDTV channel (no extra capacity) but would be easier to understand. Yes, some special software would be required to jump to the BBC nations and regions, but nothing is impossible. > However if HD takes off - as most people expect it will - will BBC HD be > the only channel in the long term? Personally my view is that ultimately > BBC HD will turn into BBC One HD, and will be coupled with BBC Two HD and so > on. > That's my point. There is no point investing in a new brand of "the BBC HD channel" which is a simulcast service if it is to be dropped eventually. > Now someone just has to make the space on the satellites for all these > channels. > There's LOADS of space on the Eurobird 1 & Astra 2A/2B/2C/2D <http://www.lyngsat.com/28east.html>satellites, and as I say, I propose that the BBC services are in SD when they are not in HD mode, requiring little bandwidth. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth > *Sent:* 26 March 2008 13:45 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only? > > > > > On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Freesat will have a mixture of HD and SD channels (exact lineup still > > to be announced). The BBC will be using the same physical video streams > > that are used on the Sky platform, so the only HD channel from the BBC will > > continue to be BBC HD. > > > > I still can't help thinking that this is a terrible idea. The BBC has a > massive investment in the BBC+number brands. BBC One has been around for 44 > years with that name and nearly 75 years as a channel. BBC Two has had been > on air for 44 years. Even BBC Four is now six, BBC three is five. > > Historicially, BBC One has gone from low-res VHF mono transmissions, to > colour UHF ones, then in stereo and then digitally. BBC Two started out in > colour UHF, and has transitioned to digital. BBC three, Four, CBBC and > CBeebies have all been digital only. News 24 and Parliament started on > analogue cable systems. > > So, now, instead of these channels transforming into digital channels - > something every consumer can understand - some of the programmes will be in > HD, but you will need to actually leave the well-understood branded BBC > channels for a HD service that has no defined programming remit, other than > to simulcast programmes from the other channels. > > This is a terrible proposition to put in front of the public. Why buy a > HDTV (if you don't have one) if you only get a damp squib of a BBC channel. > ITV plans to make ITV1 in HD, Channel 4 is doing (already) C4HD, five will > do HD. > > Even Sky has HD versions of the existing channels. > > Please Auntie, stop this nonsense! > > I understand it's hard to put the regional/national inserts into HD > versions of the channels, but the current HDTV service looks as awful as the > idea of "UK Today" that used to go out on satellite: something to please > everyone that pleases nobody. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth > > *Sent:* 26 March 2008 09:30 > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only? > > > > > > Is it true that the new BBC/ITV Freesat service (starting 5th May) will > > be "HD only"? > > > > Seems a reasonable marketing proposition ("like Freeview but HD") than > > the alternative ("like Freeview if you can't get Freeview"). > > > > So, does this mean there's going to be all the BBC channels in full-time > > HD, rather than the 9-hour "simulcast service"? > > > > > > > > > -- > Please email me back if you need any more help. > > Brian Butterworth > http://www.ukfree.tv > > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
