On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The BBC Freesat boxes are under BBC control and 101 could be BBC (your > region) One HD and 1 02 BBC (your nation) Two HD. > > Actually, Freesat boxes are ultimately under the control of Freesat (UK) > TV, which is a joint venture between BBC and ITV plc - subtle difference ;) > Perhaps most importantly though, the specification for launch was made > months ago, because people do need something in order to make the boxes. I > have no idea if such functionality is included - but if it's not, it won't > get there quickly. >
I suspect that there is a closer working between Freesat (UK) TV and the BBC than there is between Auntie and BSkyB. I *hope* so. The functionality can be added later, I hope. Even Sky can update their boxes! > I have a Freesat connection in that I'm working on the BBCi version of > Freesat (I should be deciding on weather map designs right now - whoops!) > Poor you. The BBC and it's invisible clouds. Dumpbed down "effective temperatures". You've got the short straw there! What I do know is that changing a channel's configuration on the fly > > isn't that easy and simple - in the world of interactive TV we'd love to > > have the options to suddenly close down one of our video streams and replace > > it with (say) 10 audio streams, just like that. But we don't. It requires > > just a bit more thinking about and configuration. > > > Sky does the BBC and ITV regions by broadcasting many different EPGs > structures. It's not a massive change to make the HD boxes do this kind of > thing, but it is an ask. > > Each region however has its own, permanent, dedicated video stream which > broadcasts 24/7. I can't think of any channel on Sky which reconfigures its > video configuration on the fly (e.g. bandwidth, bitrate, number of audio > channels etc) > Aside from the obvious point that there are number of channels that don't broadcast the whole day (BBC three, BBC FOUR, CBBC, CBeebies) that go to low or bitrate services AND the even more obvious point that the channels are statisitcially multipelxed together and therefore change bitrate on the fly the whole time. Also, there are additional audio channels that come on and off (for Audio Description and multilingual options). The thing that doesn't happen is channels retuning between transponders. But this could be achived with OK results if the poloraization doesn't change. It would be worth it to preserve the BBC's regional services (ITV is dumping theirs - http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051345 ) Ah well, I suspect people are in agreement there - the amount of promotion > the BBC HD brand has had since it launched has been almost minimal. > > It's actually none, isn't it? > Probably, but if I'd said "none" then someone is bound to have seen some. > As close as dammit is to swearing! Almost all of the BBC's content is on Astra 2D because it's beam is > focussed on the UK, thus allowing programmes to be broadcast without the > encryption which would be required otherwise due to rights issues. ITV > similarly use this same satellite for the same reasons. > > But it's not a requirement for BBC services to be on Astra 2D. BBC News > 24 and the radio channels have just moved to Astra 2A. > Yep - those with without rights problems. You can beam Chris Moyles > around the world and no one is really going to mind. However Five Live > and Five Live Sports Extra remain on Astra 2D - both of course carry sport. > For radio, this is where geographically-based rights to broadcast come into > play. > Hmm.. I've watched BBC channels from the south Greek islands. It works well doesn't it, the old 2D thing? > Similarly, the BBC TV channels on Astra 2A are BBC Parliament, BBC News 24 > and some BBCi streams. None of these channels have any rights implications > - which will be why they are there. Don't expect much else to move to 2A > any time soon. > > > To use Astra 2A/B/C/Eurobird 1 (which have a pan-European footprint) > > would therefore require encryption (we could debate this individual point > > til the cows come home, but I won't because frankly it wouldn't > > change anything - the BBC and ITV went in the clear by moving to Astra 2D in > > the first place, and any move back to 2A/B/C would either be costly or > > require encryption). Encryption is, by its very nature, not feasible with > > Freesat, so any broadcasting a Freesat service would either need > > pan-European rights for all their content (or at very least, not have > > content where it matters!) or be on Astra 2D. > > > No encryption is required under the *EU* Council *Directive* (89/552/EEC > of 3 October 1989) > > Never said the EU mandated it. Rights holders on the other hand, are a > bit more picky. Sports rights holders in particular are the problematical > ones - hey, BBC Scotland even had to blank out Scottish football matches on > satellite, because it didn't have the rights to show the matches in England. > It is unlawful for rightsholders to demand things that the law does not allow. > The FA, UEFA, Olympic Authorities etc, like to sell their rights on a > territorial basis - and they don't want signal overlaps getting in the way > of the money. This is also why geographical blocking is used on the BBC > website when showing sport in video for example. The BBC only has selected, > geographical rights (yes there's ways round such things, overlaps are bigger > than people think etc etc - it's about accepted risk) > > And then there's the film right owners, imported programming etc and so > on. > > > Yes, the EU directive is clear about all these - they ARE allowed on satellite. -- Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
