I think the slot has been up for bid 4 times now (twice to Channel 5, twice by the BBC to any commercial party interested) and, as far as we know, no-one wanted it. Thus, the BBC can use it as they wish. It seems logical to bust it out when necessary ("press red for 3D" or "press red for Wimbledon courts"), and then wait until the new HD mux before launching BBC Three & Four HD. There is space for all of these on satellite already.
I think the slot has been up for bid 4 times now (twice to Channel 5, twice by the BBC to any commercial party interested) and, as far as we know, no-one wanted it. Thus, the BBC can use it as they wish. It seems logical to bust it out when necessary ("press red for 3D" or "press red for Wimbledon courts"), and then wait until the new HD mux before launching BBC Three & Four HD. There is space for all of these on satellite already.
The perfect solution was to simulcast any channel as soon as it had any HD content at all.
Simulcasting all the equivalents of our main terrestrial channels (public and commercial) in HD is the "real world" situation in other countries already.
The perfect solution was to simulcast any channel as soon as it had any HD content at all.
Simulcasting all the equivalents of our main terrestrial channels (public and commercial) in HD is the "real world" situation in other countries already.
The "real world" means that the BBC would not have had the space available to them, neither would they necessarily have had the budget.
And would loading the BBC with additional rights, playout and spectrum costs as soon as the first programme went HD be a good use of LF money when the rest of the channel's output was firmly SD? I doubt it.
This is where perfect solutions in the real world fall apart.
All the talk about the BBC budget and not affording HD is LIES.
They have the money and resources and the space.
They are mismanaged.
If you believe their bile about poverty and platform neutrality then I envy your naiveness.
We should have BBC One/Two/Three/Four/CBeebies/CBBC ALL in HD.
They waste money and don't deliver a public service they line their own pockets and are essentially taxing the public for the privilege.
Please provide evidence for your claims.
The only broadcaster I know of that has every channel in HD is ITV (let's be generous and ignore CITV), and 3 of those are entirely subsidised by subscriptions. The BBC already has more FTA HD channels than any other broadcaster in the UK, I find it difficult to believe there's no barriers to making all of their output HD tomorrow. If it's so easy, why have even Sky with their £1bn profit not done it yet?
It will happen sooner or later though, hopefully by 2014.
All the talk about the BBC budget and not affording HD is LIES.
They have the money and resources and the space.
They are mismanaged.
If you believe their bile about poverty and platform neutrality then I envy your naiveness.
We should have BBC One/Two/Three/Four/CBeebies/CBBC ALL in HD.
They waste money and don't deliver a public service they line their own pockets and are essentially taxing the public for the privilege.
Agree, I'd shut them down, they are not required, under this license fee system, its a tax - and why would we want any more HD channels they have enough repeats on now, did anyone see what they spend in building there new broadcasting house, it was no house i can tell you,
Agree, I'd shut them down, they are not required, under this license fee system, its a tax - and why would we want any more HD channels they have enough repeats on now, did anyone see what they spend in building there new broadcasting house, it was no house i can tell you,
and a lot of the money for NBH came from BBC Worldwide. But this isn't the broadcasting forum, and as such these topics are not really appropriate for the Freeview forum.
A useful document Sue, but it proves Dansy+'s point...
• Financial impact – the net effect of these changes is an increase in BBC
distribution spend, although this is small relative to current overall spend.
That's for launching three 24-hour HD channels (in three different "nations" - not all run out of one location), and carriage on all platforms. The message there is clear: it does cost a little more, but the cost is not a problem.
(I am not attacking the BBC. I'm sure they would love to broadcast everything in HD. Beancounters and politicians. I need day no more.)
That's for launching three 24-hour HD channels (in three different "nations" - not all run out of one location), and carriage on all platforms. The message there is clear: it does cost a little more, but the cost is not a problem.
It may not be a problem where the content is significantly different such as BBC One, but would be a problem where opt-outs are less frequent, such as BBC Two.
e) had not necessarily passed Ofcom's Market Impact Assessment
And as "legally obliged" would imply some penalty for not observing that clause, it would be extremely odd to enforce something upon the BBC when it (the BBC) has no control over the commercial broadcasting decisions taken by third parties which would have led to that clause being invoked.
Comments
Then all will be right with the world.
Yes, the ideal (and perfect) solution.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
Indeed - perfect solutions and the real world tend not to co-exist.
Simulcasting all the equivalents of our main terrestrial channels (public and commercial) in HD is the "real world" situation in other countries already.
The "real world" means that the BBC would not have had the space available to them, neither would they necessarily have had the budget.
And would loading the BBC with additional rights, playout and spectrum costs as soon as the first programme went HD be a good use of LF money when the rest of the channel's output was firmly SD? I doubt it.
This is where perfect solutions in the real world fall apart.
They have the money and resources and the space.
They are mismanaged.
If you believe their bile about poverty and platform neutrality then I envy your naiveness.
We should have BBC One/Two/Three/Four/CBeebies/CBBC ALL in HD.
They waste money and don't deliver a public service they line their own pockets and are essentially taxing the public for the privilege.
The only broadcaster I know of that has every channel in HD is ITV (let's be generous and ignore CITV), and 3 of those are entirely subsidised by subscriptions. The BBC already has more FTA HD channels than any other broadcaster in the UK, I find it difficult to believe there's no barriers to making all of their output HD tomorrow. If it's so easy, why have even Sky with their £1bn profit not done it yet?
It will happen sooner or later though, hopefully by 2014.
You are spouting complete rubbish based upon no knowledge at all and an rather obvious anti-BBC agenda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21413506 - my thoughts with all affected.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1799875
Agree, I'd shut them down, they are not required, under this license fee system, its a tax - and why would we want any more HD channels they have enough repeats on now, did anyone see what they spend in building there new broadcasting house, it was no house i can tell you,
That's for launching three 24-hour HD channels (in three different "nations" - not all run out of one location), and carriage on all platforms. The message there is clear: it does cost a little more, but the cost is not a problem.
(I am not attacking the BBC. I'm sure they would love to broadcast everything in HD. Beancounters and politicians. I need day no more.)
Cheers,
David.
It may not be a problem where the content is significantly different such as BBC One, but would be a problem where opt-outs are less frequent, such as BBC Two.
I am hoping there is a rule in small print that if no broadcaster comes forward the BBC are legally obliged to use it.
Therefore getting us a 3rd 24hr HD station on ALL platforms.
I'm guessing though this wont happen and
an application from Channel 5 may have come in
or better still Sky launch a free TV charm offensive to mop up FTA sports rights with the soon to name change Pick TV HD ....................lol
Ask BBC Two continuity ro put it in the This is BBC Two loop!
Keep dreaming.
Oh don't worry, even if it has, they usually fail to materialise.
Ask BBC Audience Services.
That would be a very draconian (if not unfair) clause that would potentially disadvantage the BBC by forcing it to do something that
a) it had not budgeted for
b) it had no plans to do
c) the BBC Trust had not sanctioned
d) had not passed a Public Value Test (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/tools_we_use/new_services/new_services.html)
e) had not necessarily passed Ofcom's Market Impact Assessment
And as "legally obliged" would imply some penalty for not observing that clause, it would be extremely odd to enforce something upon the BBC when it (the BBC) has no control over the commercial broadcasting decisions taken by third parties which would have led to that clause being invoked.
It would be like forcing Ofcom to operate the local tv franchises in Plymouth and Swansea because no local applicants came forward. Not realistic.