How about not do ANYTHING until they can afford it?
Why create a problem by making BBC HD into BBC2HD when it creates a problem that the poor, sob, sob, sob BBC can't afford to sort out?
BBC HD costs over £17million/year to run at present and presumably the cost of scheduling and playing out a unique channel costs more than a HD version of an existing channel, so simulcasting BBC Two in HD is likely to save the BBC some money.
How about not do ANYTHING until they can afford it?
Now that's practicable reality that we all have to face!
Why create a problem by making BBC HD into BBC2HD when it creates a problem that the poor, sob, sob, sob BBC can't afford to sort out?
You may not have noticed, but there was already a problem with BBC HD, and that problem was growing week by week, programme by programme.
As the channel carries HD programming from four channels (BBC Three, BBC Four, Cbeebies and CBBC), it was becoming increasingly problematic in trying to schedule HD broadcasts of increasingly-common HD content, especially when trying to allow for simulcasts. Viewers were making their frustrations known.
And as more programming was made in HD (in fact, all commissioned programming from around April 2011 onwards had to be produced in HD unless there were serious and compelling reasons otherwise), the situation was only going to worsen (as indeed it has over the past year).
And let's face it, BBC HD was reflecting more and more of the BBC Two schedule anyway (as the more popular programming was given the coveted simulcast status).
Coupled with the changes that will take place with DQF, I guess that this is now seen to be the opportune time to make that inevitable switch to a simulcast of BBC Two. And in doing so there are some savings to be made (as alexj2002 has just pointed out, and supported by the figures on page 9 of the DQF Final conclusions document from teh BBC Trust).
Wait until they can afford to do the job properly and then do it altogether. No problems caused and a solution in the end.
See above. And maybe waiting until they had resources to do everything would have had impacts on other areas as well. But I would emphasise that this situation that they are presenting is only temporary, it might last no more than a year (or less), and in that time BBC Two's programming will be available in HD on the simulcast HD channel, with a potential that maybe some BBC Four programming might get a BBC Two outing as per DQF.
It's not as if this situation will be permanent (assuming the necessary governance and budgetary clearances are given).
Is that common sense enough for you or will you come up with another post telling me what is what?
I guess that you will see this as "another post telling me what is what" then.
So be it. Just trying to point out the facts, where we are now and where we will be in the future.
I have no wish to get drawn any further into an argument with you over what is in truth a temporary stop-gap measure, and one that really is being blown up out of all proportion in my view.
BBC HD costs over £17million/year to run at present and presumably the cost of scheduling and playing out a unique channel costs more than a HD version of an existing channel, so simulcasting BBC Two in HD is likely to save the BBC some money.
And in doing so there are some savings to be made (as alexj2002 has just pointed out, and supported by the figures on page 9 of the DQF Final conclusions document from teh BBC Trust).
What is the correlation between alexj2002's costs of £17m for BBC HD and the figures on page 9?
Comments
No it isn't
Soory finger trouble - about £300M in total over 3 Years
The sum is limited to £150M in any one year
see the September 2011 Amendment to the Agreement Cm8170 at section 41A
How about not do ANYTHING until they can afford it?
Now that's practicable reality that we all have to face!
Why create a problem by making BBC HD into BBC2HD when it creates a problem that the poor, sob, sob, sob BBC can't afford to sort out?
Wait until they can afford to do the job properly and then do it altogether. No problems caused and a solution in the end.
Is that common sense enough for you or will you come up with another post telling me what is what?
BBC HD costs over £17million/year to run at present and presumably the cost of scheduling and playing out a unique channel costs more than a HD version of an existing channel, so simulcasting BBC Two in HD is likely to save the BBC some money.
As the channel carries HD programming from four channels (BBC Three, BBC Four, Cbeebies and CBBC), it was becoming increasingly problematic in trying to schedule HD broadcasts of increasingly-common HD content, especially when trying to allow for simulcasts. Viewers were making their frustrations known.
And as more programming was made in HD (in fact, all commissioned programming from around April 2011 onwards had to be produced in HD unless there were serious and compelling reasons otherwise), the situation was only going to worsen (as indeed it has over the past year).
And let's face it, BBC HD was reflecting more and more of the BBC Two schedule anyway (as the more popular programming was given the coveted simulcast status).
Coupled with the changes that will take place with DQF, I guess that this is now seen to be the opportune time to make that inevitable switch to a simulcast of BBC Two. And in doing so there are some savings to be made (as alexj2002 has just pointed out, and supported by the figures on page 9 of the DQF Final conclusions document from teh BBC Trust).
See above. And maybe waiting until they had resources to do everything would have had impacts on other areas as well. But I would emphasise that this situation that they are presenting is only temporary, it might last no more than a year (or less), and in that time BBC Two's programming will be available in HD on the simulcast HD channel, with a potential that maybe some BBC Four programming might get a BBC Two outing as per DQF.
It's not as if this situation will be permanent (assuming the necessary governance and budgetary clearances are given).
I guess that you will see this as "another post telling me what is what" then.
So be it. Just trying to point out the facts, where we are now and where we will be in the future.
I have no wish to get drawn any further into an argument with you over what is in truth a temporary stop-gap measure, and one that really is being blown up out of all proportion in my view.
What is the correlation between alexj2002's costs of £17m for BBC HD and the figures on page 9?
2016-17 are listed as £2m, as against £2.8m before savings.
I guess that it does not cover savings in running costs.
And of BBC Three, it states:
Source?
The £ 15M is distribution cost which will move to BBC 2 ... The other costs will go ... More or less.
Thanks
Whilst dramas, US imports and other stuff get erm...the internet.