Could these be pay channel(s) or do they have to be free to view? If free to view and SD, CBS Drama, Reality and Action would seem good candidates.
They have to FTA and not slapper or shopping channels as per what Ofcom said when they allowed BBC to sell it when Channel 5 pissed around the 2 previous times.
Id like E4HD personally and no time-sharing services as they do not work because you will always be missing something when it changes around.
This good that some type of action is being done on the space on HD mux that was put there for Five HD, but did not wish to be on freeview. ......
HD would be nice like History HD, Film4 HD, Watch HD, Eden HD, Syfy HD, Eurosport HD ITV2 HD ?
BBC 2 HD is to come in spring and that will take place of BBC HD.
So it would be nice to have 3 new 24 hr channels on freeview like CBS Action, CBS Horror CBS Drama or Watch, Eden, Sony, Disney but no betting, shopping channels please.
BBC could bring BBC3 and BBC4 more hours or give BBC1 HD+1 ??
BBC could bring BBC3 and BBC4 more hours or give BBC1 HD+1 ??
Not without a bigger budget and their budget is being reduced. The BBC Trust aren't going to give the go ahead for any extra channels with the current restraints on spending.
For me, the ideal would be for UK TV to rationalise down to 6 channels, and for them all to be on Freeview and Freesat.
The BBC could do this, as they own 50% of UKTV
They could do it IF the business models allow it - in other word, if the income lost from subscriptions was to be made up by income gained from more expensive advertising slots.
That might work for the most popular channels, but not for all of them.
The BBC could use a HD red button channel. I know I'm probably gonna get some flack for this, but one of the only reasons I watch BBC HD is for there trickle of 3d programming.
I don't know where I'm gonna get that once bbc 2 HD replaces it.
Now, I know that 3d only has a niche appeal, but as a public service broadcaster it should have some dedcated service ( more than it currently has, IMHO.)
A HD red button service would provide an outlet for that as well as other things.
Not without a bigger budget and their budget is being reduced. The BBC Trust aren't going to give the go ahead for any extra channels with the current restraints on spending.
And the main reason that any broadcaster supports a +1 channel is that it creates extra opportunity for additional advertising revenue for the fraction of the cost of a new channel.. The BBC does not need this option, and they also have iPlayer.
Or the proposals did not meet with the BBC's approval (or standards)
Whichever it might be, it does not look particularly promising - but maybe the BBC will be minded to use the space themselves if this advert fails to attract a worthy contender.
I live in hope.
There is a third possibility that whoever ' won' last time had a strategic change of direction.
I think that given the comparatively short length of time this auction is open for; there may well be other parties who were interested.
TI think that given the comparatively short length of time this auction is open for; there may well be other parties who were interested.
Possible. But the Dec 20th deadline is to register an expression of interest, not as I see it a cut-off for a tendering process
On the other hand, the BBC could be anxious to reach a conclusion one way or another, and will put forward their own plans should no suitable bidders come forward this time (seeing as it has dragged on for 8 months already, 15 months if you count Channel Five's aborted application)
They say and some gullible people think oh they are skint.
NO.
They get over £5bn (link below) to work with and if they cut their cloth accordingly and run the business/service to its potential we should have only HD programming coming in and an outlet to show them.
There is no reason why 3 24hr HD stations is not feasible.
With most content from BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three & BBC Four available in HD along with kids TV too in the form of CBBC & CBeebies. The people at the BBC should be looking to cut dross and wasteage and over inflated salaries, where no justification can be given, and provide us the paying public with a service we pay for!
They say and some gullible people think oh they are skint.
NO.
They get over £5bn (link below) to work with and if they cut their cloth accordingly and run the business/service to its potential we should have only HD programming coming in and an outlet to show them.
There is no reason why 3 24hr HD stations is not feasible.
With most content from BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three & BBC Four available in HD along with kids TV too in the form of CBBC & CBeebies. The people at the BBC should be looking to cut dross and wasteage and over inflated salaries, where no justification can be given, and provide us the paying public with a service we pay for!
Regards,
Dan.
That's a disjointed argument and isn't even internally consistent. For example, A salary couldn't be over- inflated and justified.
Basically your argument is that by cutting some things ( you aren't sure what they are or if they exist) then there would be money for something else which you would like to see. And you claim to speak for the whole of the public.
A better argument might be, if the BBC can find the money then it is likely that many people ( but not all) would welcome further BBC HD channels.
They say and some gullible people think oh they are skint.
The BBC is under the greatest financial pressure for many years and in the second LF settlement which was designed to down size the BBC.... one point not mentioned is that its borrowing is only £200M as it is part of PSBR and tehe successive governments have not changed that for well over 30 years ... - hence the sale of BBC transmission and BBC Broadcast to afford the original Capex of "digital"
...and over inflated salaries, where no justification can be given, and provide us the paying public with a service we pay for!
Like the fact that the BBC DG get paid less than Half the salary of the Chief Exec of the other Publicly owned TV PSB - which is one fifth the turnover ....... and just in case you think this is a very recent trend - 3 years ago the top 2 people in that broadcaster were paid more than the sum of the salary of the top 6 people in the BBC put together - including the DG at more than 1.5 time his current salary.
where no justification can be given, and provide us the paying public with a service we pay for!
They already do. But what you want is a major extension to that service.
Now, on the understanding that the BBC is prepared to launch two new HD channels in 2014 utilising the additional DTT spectrum from Ofcom, it is fair to assume that they feel that they will have sufficient funds at that time to do so.
Now (some idle speculation here) it could transpire that, in the event of no other broadcaster coming up with a suitable "Fifth HD Channel" proposal, the BBC might be able to find the funds to bridge that 12-month gap - launch one HD channel a year early utilising the Fifth Channel space, only to relinquish it in 2014 when the proposed DTT mux comes on-stream (which might then be a better fit with the HD plans from broadcasters such as Channel 5).
Are people completely barking mad?!?!? Why is anybody on here saying they would prefer 3 more SD channels?!?!?! As people have already pointed out on here you would still need a Freeview HD set top box or TV to view the channels. They are therefore of no use to people without HD equipment.
It would be a complete disaster to waste limited HD frequency on more friggin' SD channels. Which WILL inevitably just be shopping channels or similar dross. Sky and Virgin pay all the better channels not available on Freeview to remain on their services. They aren't going to dump their lucrative Sky deals for even less viewers on Freeview HD.
Yeah, lets have more SD channels that look wibbly wobbly once they've gone through the useless upscalers 99% HD TV sets come fitted with. Asking for more SD on a HD service is like buying a colour TV and then asking if you can have more black and white channels. Utter madness!
There is a third possibility that whoever ' won' last time had a strategic change of direction.
I think that given the comparatively short length of time this auction is open for; there may well be other parties who were interested.
Yeah - Sky offered them an 'exclusive' HD carriage deal they couldn't refuse to keep them off Freeview (probably!) - the same reason C5 HD has been denied to us terrestrially.
Yeah - Sky offered them an 'exclusive' HD carriage deal they couldn't refuse to keep them off Freeview (probably!) - the same reason C5 HD has been denied to us terrestrially.
Oh, I thought it was because CH5 couldn't afford to launch on Freeview (as it's very expensive, about £10m a year) and Sky offered them a subsidised HD slot to launch a HD channel.
But if I'm wrong there, someone please correct me.
Oh, I thought it was because CH5 couldn't afford to launch on Freeview (as it's very expensive, about £10m a year) and Sky offered them a subsidised HD slot to launch a HD channel.
But if I'm wrong there, someone please correct me.
The fact that they applied and won twice would indicate that they didn't find it too expensive to launch on Freeview. They failed to launch on both occasions for reasons that were withheld from publicly available documents. Which would indicate that the reasons were commercially sensitive. Terms of existing contracts would be commercially sensitive, so you have to draw your own conclusions.
Now, on the understanding that the BBC is prepared to launch two new HD channels in 2014 utilising the additional DTT spectrum from Ofcom, it is fair to assume that they feel that they will have sufficient funds at that time to do so.
...or they will be "helped", because that will be used to drive a T2 switchover.
Sadly they have to play these political games to survive. Viewers miss out in the mean time.
I'm not saying Aunty is blameless, but you have to lay a fair amount of the blame elsewhere.
, it is fair to assume that they feel that they will have sufficient funds at that time to do so.
.
Well assume about 2 years income from the fifth slot
- and just part of the savings from not dual illumination ...
should go a long way towards more DTT HD channels from the BBC_
and with enough success to go into the next LF round..... to maintain the services (2014 is significant wrt 2016)
But something seems to be missing thanks to Ch5 and others
The fact that they applied and won twice would indicate that they didn't find it too expensive to launch on Freeview. They failed to launch on both occasions for reasons that were withheld from publicly available documents. Which would indicate that the reasons were commercially sensitive. Terms of existing contracts would be commercially sensitive, so you have to draw your own conclusions.
If any existing contract precluded C5 from launching their HD channel on DTT, why would they bother applying twice?
Is there a source for that? The last that I saw a few months ago was that the plans were on track for BBC Two HD next year (that was a BBC statement).
And the recent joint 600mHz document stated this:
BBC:
The BBC already broadcasts two of its television services (namely BBC One and BBC HD, soon to be replaced by BBC Two) in HD on the DTT platform. The BBC Executive plans to simulcast a third BBC television service and potentially the BBC Red Button video service in HD on the interim multiplex from its launch. The BBC Trust is aware of the proposed approach and any necessary regulatory approvals will be sought from it in due course.
If any existing contract precluded C5 from launching their HD channel on DTT, why would they bother applying twice?
Quite simply to delay it from being awarded to anyone else. If they could delay it long enough (by being awarded it and then backing out) by the time it came up again they might be out of their carriage deal with Sky.
However Ofcom then decided to let the BBC rent it out on a commercial basis.....
Comments
They have to FTA and not slapper or shopping channels as per what Ofcom said when they allowed BBC to sell it when Channel 5 pissed around the 2 previous times.
Id like E4HD personally and no time-sharing services as they do not work because you will always be missing something when it changes around.
The BBC could do this, as they own 50% of UKTV
HD would be nice like History HD, Film4 HD, Watch HD, Eden HD, Syfy HD, Eurosport HD ITV2 HD ?
BBC 2 HD is to come in spring and that will take place of BBC HD.
So it would be nice to have 3 new 24 hr channels on freeview like CBS Action, CBS Horror CBS Drama or Watch, Eden, Sony, Disney but no betting, shopping channels please.
BBC could bring BBC3 and BBC4 more hours or give BBC1 HD+1 ??
Not without a bigger budget and their budget is being reduced. The BBC Trust aren't going to give the go ahead for any extra channels with the current restraints on spending.
They could do it IF the business models allow it - in other word, if the income lost from subscriptions was to be made up by income gained from more expensive advertising slots.
That might work for the most popular channels, but not for all of them.
I don't know where I'm gonna get that once bbc 2 HD replaces it.
Now, I know that 3d only has a niche appeal, but as a public service broadcaster it should have some dedcated service ( more than it currently has, IMHO.)
A HD red button service would provide an outlet for that as well as other things.
And the main reason that any broadcaster supports a +1 channel is that it creates extra opportunity for additional advertising revenue for the fraction of the cost of a new channel.. The BBC does not need this option, and they also have iPlayer.
Thus, the BBC would never launch a +1 channel.
There is a third possibility that whoever ' won' last time had a strategic change of direction.
I think that given the comparatively short length of time this auction is open for; there may well be other parties who were interested.
On the other hand, the BBC could be anxious to reach a conclusion one way or another, and will put forward their own plans should no suitable bidders come forward this time (seeing as it has dragged on for 8 months already, 15 months if you count Channel Five's aborted application)
They say and some gullible people think oh they are skint.
NO.
They get over £5bn (link below) to work with and if they cut their cloth accordingly and run the business/service to its potential we should have only HD programming coming in and an outlet to show them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
There is no reason why 3 24hr HD stations is not feasible.
With most content from BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three & BBC Four available in HD along with kids TV too in the form of CBBC & CBeebies. The people at the BBC should be looking to cut dross and wasteage and over inflated salaries, where no justification can be given, and provide us the paying public with a service we pay for!
Regards,
Dan.
That's a disjointed argument and isn't even internally consistent. For example, A salary couldn't be over- inflated and justified.
Basically your argument is that by cutting some things ( you aren't sure what they are or if they exist) then there would be money for something else which you would like to see. And you claim to speak for the whole of the public.
A better argument might be, if the BBC can find the money then it is likely that many people ( but not all) would welcome further BBC HD channels.
The BBC is under the greatest financial pressure for many years and in the second LF settlement which was designed to down size the BBC.... one point not mentioned is that its borrowing is only £200M as it is part of PSBR and tehe successive governments have not changed that for well over 30 years ... - hence the sale of BBC transmission and BBC Broadcast to afford the original Capex of "digital"
Like the fact that the BBC DG get paid less than Half the salary of the Chief Exec of the other Publicly owned TV PSB - which is one fifth the turnover ....... and just in case you think this is a very recent trend - 3 years ago the top 2 people in that broadcaster were paid more than the sum of the salary of the top 6 people in the BBC put together - including the DG at more than 1.5 time his current salary.
For example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18854839
They already do. But what you want is a major extension to that service.
Now, on the understanding that the BBC is prepared to launch two new HD channels in 2014 utilising the additional DTT spectrum from Ofcom, it is fair to assume that they feel that they will have sufficient funds at that time to do so.
Now (some idle speculation here) it could transpire that, in the event of no other broadcaster coming up with a suitable "Fifth HD Channel" proposal, the BBC might be able to find the funds to bridge that 12-month gap - launch one HD channel a year early utilising the Fifth Channel space, only to relinquish it in 2014 when the proposed DTT mux comes on-stream (which might then be a better fit with the HD plans from broadcasters such as Channel 5).
It would be a complete disaster to waste limited HD frequency on more friggin' SD channels. Which WILL inevitably just be shopping channels or similar dross. Sky and Virgin pay all the better channels not available on Freeview to remain on their services. They aren't going to dump their lucrative Sky deals for even less viewers on Freeview HD.
Yeah, lets have more SD channels that look wibbly wobbly once they've gone through the useless upscalers 99% HD TV sets come fitted with. Asking for more SD on a HD service is like buying a colour TV and then asking if you can have more black and white channels. Utter madness!
Yeah - Sky offered them an 'exclusive' HD carriage deal they couldn't refuse to keep them off Freeview (probably!) - the same reason C5 HD has been denied to us terrestrially.
Oh, I thought it was because CH5 couldn't afford to launch on Freeview (as it's very expensive, about £10m a year) and Sky offered them a subsidised HD slot to launch a HD channel.
But if I'm wrong there, someone please correct me.
The fact that they applied and won twice would indicate that they didn't find it too expensive to launch on Freeview. They failed to launch on both occasions for reasons that were withheld from publicly available documents. Which would indicate that the reasons were commercially sensitive. Terms of existing contracts would be commercially sensitive, so you have to draw your own conclusions.
Sadly they have to play these political games to survive. Viewers miss out in the mean time.
I'm not saying Aunty is blameless, but you have to lay a fair amount of the blame elsewhere.
Cheers,
David.
Well assume about 2 years income from the fifth slot
- and just part of the savings from not dual illumination ...
should go a long way towards more DTT HD channels from the BBC_
and with enough success to go into the next LF round..... to maintain the services (2014 is significant wrt 2016)
But something seems to be missing thanks to Ch5 and others
If any existing contract precluded C5 from launching their HD channel on DTT, why would they bother applying twice?
I am assuming this is due to the 600mhz request the BBC made recently.
Is there a source for that? The last that I saw a few months ago was that the plans were on track for BBC Two HD next year (that was a BBC statement).
And the recent joint 600mHz document stated this:
Quite simply to delay it from being awarded to anyone else. If they could delay it long enough (by being awarded it and then backing out) by the time it came up again they might be out of their carriage deal with Sky.
However Ofcom then decided to let the BBC rent it out on a commercial basis.....