[jj20x]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

Well, there have been three attempts to sell this slot, all seem to have floundered. the last attempt was a short-notice one early December last year, with a closing date of the 14th Dec (I think, it was definitely December though). As it was a short-notice bid to re-advertise the slot, I would have thought that we would have heard something by now.

Indeed, demand does not seem to be high.

As for which channel they might use, we have given the possibilities as they stand.

Yes, the possibilities; it will either be BBC Two HD, if they decide to break away from the SD simulcast, or BBCi HD, if they keep the BBC Two simulcast, decide to open up this slot for a relatively short period and assuming it is still available. Time will tell.

[DragonQ]

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.

Then all will be right with the world.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

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.

Then all will be right with the world.

Yes, the ideal (and perfect) solution.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

Yes, the ideal (and perfect) solution.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by jj20x

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Indeed - perfect solutions and the real world tend not to co-exist.

[2Bdecided]

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.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by 2Bdecided

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.

[Dansky+HD]

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.

[DragonQ]

Originally Posted by Dansky+HD

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.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Dansky+HD

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.

You are spouting complete rubbish based upon no knowledge at all and an rather obvious anti-BBC agenda.

[Sue_Aitch]

I suggest that Dansky+ take time to download and read the High Definition part of http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_wo...html#section-8

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21413506 - my thoughts with all affected.

[a516]

According to the BBC Trust, who is reviewing value for money with regards the distribution of BBC content, £200 million is spent on distributing the BBC services every year. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/p...tribution.html

[Dansky+HD]

Launch date of 26th March as per thread on Sky+HD forum.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1799875

[a516]

From the horse's mouth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/lat...bc-two-hd.html

[davetech]

Originally Posted by Dansky+HD

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,

[a516]

Originally Posted by davetech

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.

[2Bdecided]

Originally Posted by Sue_Aitch

I suggest that Dansky+ take time to download and read the High Definition part of http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_wo...html#section-8

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.)

Cheers,
David.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by 2Bdecided

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.

[Sexbomb]

Enjoy the 2min testcard while you can

[disrember]

so I wonder if/who bid for the 5th stream yesterday... closing date was yesterday

[Dansky+HD]

Originally Posted by disrember

so I wonder if/who bid for the 5th stream yesterday... closing date was yesterday

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

[Sue_Aitch]

Originally Posted by Sexbomb

Enjoy the 2min testcard while you can

Ask BBC Two continuity ro put it in the This is BBC Two loop!

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by Dansky+HD

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.

Keep dreaming.

an application from Channel 5 may have come in

Oh don't worry, even if it has, they usually fail to materialise.

[Sue_Aitch]

Originally Posted by Dansky+HD

I am hoping there is a rule in small print that if no broadcaster comes forward the BBC are legally obliged to use it.

Ask BBC Audience Services.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Dansky+HD

I am hoping there is a rule in small print that if no broadcaster comes forward the BBC are legally obliged to use it.

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/govern..._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.