Why?, presumably they get paid at the same rate as other HD channels? (which won't be 'massive') - but it means they do actually make money from it, as opposed to losing money if they went FTA or remained FTV.
So no need for 'massive chunks of money', simply the difference between losing money and making money.
I meant that more in terms of a deal to stay encrypted instead of going FTA which would give another HD channel to Freesat and if they launched more HD channels, would benefit Freesat too. Being offered a sweetner in the form of all regions in HD so they can take 105 or having 5 USA and 5★ in HD could have been the extra they were offered over the standard rate as a way of encouraging them to go pay rather than free.
Does not affect me. Rarely watch SD C5 and left sky many years ago over the issue of additional subscriptions for services I was already paying for such as multi room and HD.
As for C5 then if they want to delay or indeed resist from FTV and FTA HD then that is their right. As for me I have deleted the poor quality C5 SD from my freeview HD TV set and Freesat HD box. Hope some of C5 advertisers understand that if their client company excludes some of its potential audience then I as part of that audiance can exclude the ability to view that chanel in less than 5 minutes and I will miss C5 as much as I dont miss the Sky channels I used to watch.
That's a bit extreme. What is a sporting event or big TV show you really want to watch comes to Channel 5? Would you retune it back in and then delete it afterwards? Have you deleted C5+1, 5USA and 5★ too?
Its my right to do this. As I understand it C5 was FTV but will become subscription only the HD versions of the other C5 channels has always been subscription and I chose to leave sky over their charges policy. I regard sky HD offering as a unique selling point and had it offered HD channels in the normal subscription package Sky would still have me as a customer. They dont they chose their pricing I chose to reject. C5+1 yest I have deleted they but the other's no not for now. If C5 ever get a sporting event or big show it will be my loss but does anyone think this channel will have the cash to do this, I dont but then again like most things I will be proved wrong and I am too suborn to admit that I ever make mistakes. My choice, you make your choice but how do we consumers protest these days, no use writing because they think they are always right and I am always wrong. There's more to life than telly
If they are losing money, to put out their content in HD, that means the content is wrong or they are marketing it incorrectly. If that is the case they should give the station over to a broadcaster that can do the job properly without reverting to third party broadcasters.
So you imagine all the other FTA broadcasters HD channels run at a profit? - I don't think so
Do you imagine there's a 'magic money pot' somewhere that pays for them?.
You wildly underestimate the number of Sky SD boxes that are still in use - there are around 3 million subscribers whose main box is still SD plus at least the same number using SD boxes as FSFS or FTA boxes plus a large number using SD boxes as multiroom boxes (sub or card free) in bedrooms and kids rooms.
So...?
People are using outdated equipment years old.
You can't wait for ever for everyone's box to die before upgrading the service. At the end of the day if it was just SD and HD then you could wait for ever. Who would care.
The fact is 4K and 8K are nearly here and to make room for 4K you need to lose SD as its too expensive for broadcasters to simulcast in 3 formats, so the old format needs to go.
This is a case of the old format preventing progression and that can't be allowed to happen just as analogue had to be turned off because it was preventing the progression to digital. You could have waited 100 years and people would have still been using analogue if switch-over hadn't occurred and that is the problem. There's a large pool of people who have tv for tv's sake, aren't interested in a better picture and so will simply use equipment until it dies or can't be replaced with the same product 2nd hand. That could easily be 30-40 years+.
SD needs to be switched off on Sat now to pave the way for 4K.
SD tv owners can still get SD via a HD box so no-one loses out big time. All that happens is those with old SD boxes (which are years old anyway) have to buy a new set top box for HD (which then downscales to SD for them). Hardly a major issue in a world of changing technology. If boxes cost a lot then maybe there would be a problem but for most we're talking less than £100 to replace something already a minimum of 3-4 years old. Hardly unreasonable especially when those same people can afford to pay a Sky subscription every month.
Does not affect me. Rarely watch SD C5 and left sky many years ago over the issue of additional subscriptions for services I was already paying for such as multi room and HD.
As for C5 then if they want to delay or indeed resist from FTV and FTA HD then that is their right. As for me I have deleted the poor quality C5 SD from my freeview HD TV set and Freesat HD box. Hope some of C5 advertisers understand that if their client company excludes some of its potential audience then I as part of that audiance can exclude the ability to view that chanel in less than 5 minutes and I will miss C5 as much as I dont miss the Sky channels I used to watch.
What a great idea, I have just deleted channel 5 from my FREESAT and Freeveiw boxes
You can't wait for ever for everyone's box to die before upgrading the service. At the end of the day if it was just SD and HD then you could wait for ever. Who would care.
The fact is 4K and 8K are nearly here and to make room for 4K you need to lose SD as its too expensive for broadcasters to simulcast in 3 formats, so the old format needs to go.
What rubbish - the first 4k channel is at least 2 years away and 8k probably another 2 years at least after that. Further 4k channels will be slow to appear with the earth of suitable programming. and where is the money coming from to finance them. Simulcasting SD as well as HD is very cheap compared to UHD requiring merely downscaling besides the actual transmission costs. At present it is reckoned that UHD transmissions will require between 8 and 16 times the bandwith of HD (so around the cost of at least 20 SD channels) and this is on top of the costs of replacing virtually everything from the studio/playout centre to the uplink station. There is more than enough spare capacity on the 28 E satellites for 4 or 5 UHD channels at least and that is amost certainly at least 4 years away. Plenty of time for natural wastage to remove a large percentage of the SD boxes.
This is a case of the old format preventing progression and that can't be allowed to happen just as analogue had to be turned off because it was preventing the progression to digital. You could have waited 100 years and people would have still been using analogue if switch-over hadn't occurred and that is the problem. There's a large pool of people who have tv for tv's sake, aren't interested in a better picture and so will simply use equipment until it dies or can't be replaced with the same product 2nd hand. That could easily be 30-40 years+.
SD needs to be switched off on Sat now to pave the way for 4K.
SD tv owners can still get SD via a HD box so no-one loses out big time. All that happens is those with old SD boxes (which are years old anyway) have to buy a new set top box for HD (which then downscales to SD for them). Hardly a major issue in a world of changing technology. If boxes cost a lot then maybe there would be a problem but for most we're talking less than £100 to replace something already a minimum of 3-4 years old. Hardly unreasonable especially when those same people can afford to pay a Sky subscription every month.
The only content for 4k for at least the next 2 years is gaming consoles (they are still trying to develop the 8 layer BluRay technology to cope with UHD) and it will take at least another couple of years for enough content for more than a couple of channels - so you want to force at least 3 million households to upgrade and bin working boxes prematurely to make room for non-existent channels.
I meant that more in terms of a deal to stay encrypted instead of going FTA which would give another HD channel to Freesat and if they launched more HD channels, would benefit Freesat too. Being offered a sweetner in the form of all regions in HD so they can take 105 or having 5 USA and 5★ in HD could have been the extra they were offered over the standard rate as a way of encouraging them to go pay rather than free.
I doubt whether 5* and 5USA (in HD) would ever be FTA even if C5HD was, Desmond wouldn't afford it!
I bet Sky have offered this for a while now and C5 have up until now resisted in the hope of holding out for a deal on DTT. Now that's faded somewhat and with them soon to launch 5Later, they've probably given in to Sky on the grounds you and I both mentioned (the LCN 105 swap) plus the fact it might offset the 5Later launch costs too. Partly speculation of course but that's my bet.
Lets hope Sky don't help them launch 5Later (in SD) on Satellite behind a paywall or FTV too! I seriously doubt it as it's HD channels they are interested in.
So you imagine all the other FTA broadcasters HD channels run at a profit? - I don't think so
Do you imagine there's a 'magic money pot' somewhere that pays for them?.
But none of the others are a prime terrestrial service. This is 2013. HD has been around for eons. If channel five did not have the 'Magic Money Pot' to pay for a modern TV channel in the latest normal broadcast standard (ie HD) quality, they should not be allowed to run it. So they should have the channel taken off them & channel five given to someone who will run it properly, as per all the other terrestrial channels.
But none of the others are a prime terrestrial service. This is 2013. HD has been around for eons. If channel five did not have the 'Magic Money Pot' to pay for a modern TV channel in the latest normal broadcast standard (ie HD) quality, they should not be allowed to run it. So they should have the channel taken off them & channel five given to someone who will run it properly, as per all the other terrestrial channels.
But HD is not yet the "norm" - only around 50% of the UK viewing households have the capability of watching the rest of the PSBs in HD and yet a recent survey showed that only 30% of them actually watched them in HD. So that makes only 15 to 20% of the UK viewers watch the other PSBs in HD - the average UK viewer is not as interested in HD as all the fans on here who keep on insisting that it is the be all and end all of TV, they are more interested in the content,
BTW does your comment also extend to ITV because they also chose to show the HD versions ITV2, 3 & 4 behind a paywall?
... the average UK viewer is not as interested in HD as all the fans on here who keep on insisting that it is the be all and end all of TV, they are more interested in the content,
Quoted for truth.
A couple of days ago I watched a few minutes of something I'd copied from my Foxsat on my desktop. I was amazed by the detail - sitting two feet from a 27" monitor you see a lot more than sitting 12 feet from a 32" TV!
The overall quality was superb - I presume the upscaling is very competently handled.
Simulcasting SD as well as HD is very cheap compared to UHD requiring merely downscaling besides the actual transmission costs. At present it is reckoned that UHD transmissions will require between 8 and 16 times the bandwith of HD (so around the cost of at least 20 SD channels) and this is on top of the costs of replacing virtually everything from the studio/playout centre to the uplink station.
So? It's going to cost that irrespective of whether you remove SD or not. The point is the broadcasters will be paying for both UHD and HD and SD when in fact they can claw some of that money back by broadcasting HD and UHD only. Ask the BBC if they can afford to broadcast all 3? I bet the answer is no.
The only content for 4k for at least the next 2 years is gaming consoles (they are still trying to develop the 8 layer BluRay technology to cope with UHD) and it will take at least another couple of years for enough content for more than a couple of channels - so you want to force at least 3 million households to upgrade and bin working boxes prematurely to make room for non-existent channels.
Actually the BBC natural history unit are already filming in native 4K and have been doing for some time:
Blue Ray availability has nothing to do with broadcast whatsoever as digital content is stored on hard drives.
As for 3 million Sky customers on out of date SD boxes. Exactly what makes you think everyone will magically abandon SD in 2 years time? There are people out there on 10 year old SD boxes. The issue has to be forced as this country is at risk of getting left behind.
Japan plans to start 4K transmission in as early as 2014 according to this report.
The whole idea that Sky customers who are on SD and pay a monthly subscription can't afford to buy a new Sky box and thus need protecting is ridiculous. Its less than 2 months subscription.
But HD is not yet the "norm" - only around 50% of the UK viewing households have the capability of watching the rest of the PSBs in HD and yet a recent survey showed that only 30% of them actually watched them in HD. So that makes only 15 to 20% of the UK viewers watch the other PSBs in HD - the average UK viewer is not as interested in HD as all the fans on here who keep on insisting that it is the be all and end all of TV, they are more interested in the content,
Dave I would say that 50% is bull and I don't know where you've got your figures from. Nearly every tv sold for the last 5 years has had a HD Freeview tuner built in so almost every household in the UK can receive HD transmissions. Only those in non Freeview coverage areas or with tv's older than 5 years can't, and even then that fails to take account of the numbers who fall into those categories who have HD set top boxes. I would say HD reception capability is probably nearer 90%.
As for people not being interested in the picture quality, again I don't know where your figures came from but in any case there are several factors:
1. There are a percentage of people who only watch tv because its tv and don't care about quality. I would suggest these don't make up a make up 85% of viewers as you seem to suggest. If I had to guesstimate then it might be around 30% of the population that don't care about tv.
2. There is another group of viewers, who I would suggest are in the majority, who don;t always watch HD because either there is the human laziness factor ie they can't be bothered to change the channel over, or alternatively simply forget that they're there.
I have to admit myself that if I'm in the former category - if I come in towards the end of something such as a gameshow such as the Chase, then sometimes I can't be bothered to switch to the HD variant because there isn't much time left - only 10 or 15 minutes and I'll be watching Ch5 after that which means I know I'll have to switch back to SD. The problem here is that the channels aren't together and the box takes time to switch modes which makes it a hassle. So sometimes its just easier not to. That's not the fault of HD but channel location and box design.
My own elderly mother is also one of the latter category. She loves HD but can't remember the obscure channel numbers that HD is transmitted on and often forgets its there.
This is the fault of having simulcasts of both SD and HD especially where SD channels occupy the "normal" numbers and HD are scattered about on abnormal numbers.
3. Finally there are the enthusiasts who probably make up the 15-20% you were talking about above.
So I would suggest all in all the vast majority are probably in the category of often not watching HD but largely because they can't be bothered switching over except for films or football ie something special (human laziness factor) or simply forget the HD variants are there.
It would be interesting to see the figures if 101,102,103,104 were all the HD variants. I would bet quite a lot of money that the most watched channels would be HD as people wouldn't be bothered to switch to SD.
Nearly every tv sold for the last 5 years has had a HD Freeview tuner built in so almost every household in the UK can receive HD transmissions.
Absolute and utter crap!
There's still a decent percentage of sets been sold even now that don't have Freeview HD, and 5 years ago Freeview HD hadn't even launched and there were NO sets available.
So I would imagine FAR less than half of the sets sold over the last 5 years have Freeview HD, nothing like your imaginary 'almost all'
1. There are a percentage of people who only watch tv because its tv and don't care about quality. I would suggest these don't make up a make up 85% of viewers as you seem to suggest. If I had to guesstimate then it might be around 30% of the population that don't care about tv.
2. There is another group of viewers, who I would suggest are in the majority, who don;t always watch HD because either there is the human laziness factor ie they can't be bothered to change the channel over, or alternatively simply forget that they're there.
What you analysis above misses out are people whose screen size/viewing distance makes HD completely irrelevant.
Not everyone wants an enormous screen and not everyone likes to sit close to the set.
For people such as this HD is of no interest - unless they fool themselves into thinking they can see a clearer picture because they've been told HD is better so assume it must give a better picture under all circumstances.
I agree with Nigel on this. Loads and loads of HD TV's don't have a FreeviewHD decoder built in. Even some of the bigger sets don't have a FreeviewHD decoder, and the majority under 32in don't.
You can always add a box (either just a set top box for live tv or a FreeviewHD pvr for watching and recording freeview hd content). Anyone with a HD set (be it HD Ready or FullHD) that doesn't have FreeviewHD built in, can choose to go down this route, and if they desire, use a different HD platform in the same way (eg, FreesatHD / SkyHD / CableHD boxes).
Nearly every tv sold for the last 5 years has had a HD Freeview tuner built in so almost every household in the UK can receive HD transmissions.
What exactly does that prove?
My parents and my in-laws both have a tv that's capable of receiving HD, but neither couldn't give a monkeys about HD and never use them for HD either.
Then you've got someone like my wife who for whatever reason chooses the SD channels when watching BBC 1 ,ITV or Ch4 when I prefer to use the HD channels.
Dave I would say that 50% is bull and I don't know where you've got your figures from. Nearly every tv sold for the last 5 years has had a HD Freeview tuner built in so almost every household in the UK can receive HD transmissions. Only those in non Freeview coverage areas or with tv's older than 5 years can't, and even then that fails to take account of the numbers who fall into those categories who have HD set top boxes. I would say HD reception capability is probably nearer 90%.
26.4 million households, 8 million Sky subscribers with HD boxes, 2.5 million freesat boxes sold, 5 million Freeview HD TV sets sold - that makes a total of 15.5 million stbs and TVs and many of the households will have more than one of those. Even with only one per household that makes 58% absolutely nowhere near your totally fictitious 90%. All figures checked by current Google searches for latest figures rather than your pulling figures out of the air.
BTW does your comment also extend to ITV because they also chose to show the HD versions ITV2, 3 & 4 behind a paywall?
ITV 2, 3 & 4 are not "prime terrestrial service(s)"
ITV is and it's free and in free HD
So should Channel 5's main "prime terrestrial service" be.
All this 'the HD version is not a PSB channel' is just Ofcom crap. The companies abuse semantics and some on here run with them.
It's all quite simple Channel 5 is meant to be a PSB broadcaster and therefore their main channel in whatever resolution should be free. If they can't/won't/refuse to do that then strip them of there PSB status and their name and give it to someone else who can.
Boy there is so much pedantic messing around on here.
It's all quite simple Channel 5 is meant to be a PSB broadcaster and therefore their main channel in whatever resolution should be free. If they can't/won't/refuse to do that then strip them of there PSB status and their name and give it to someone else who can.
Boy there is so much pedantic messing around on here.
Yes, but it's all from you
The HD channels AREN'T covered by the PSB requirements, no 'semantics', not 'pedantic' at all, but pure cold FACT!!.
The fact that YOU would like them to be doesn't make it so, and there's nothing to be done to make it any different (at the moment).
When the franchises come up again it 'might' be a different matter, but by then CH5 will have long since lost any right to the 105 slot on Freeview.
Nigel Goodman, I have to say most of us could not give a bit about 5hd it has never been on FREESAT or FTA, so you should really just go on to the sky forum and explain why it is no longer on fsfs or available to sky's Entertainment pack unless they pay more money, just sky trying to get every last bit of money out of it's subsciber's, for just getting 5 in hd, sky must be a big joke
Comments
So you imagine all the other FTA broadcasters HD channels run at a profit? - I don't think so
Do you imagine there's a 'magic money pot' somewhere that pays for them?.
So...?
People are using outdated equipment years old.
You can't wait for ever for everyone's box to die before upgrading the service. At the end of the day if it was just SD and HD then you could wait for ever. Who would care.
The fact is 4K and 8K are nearly here and to make room for 4K you need to lose SD as its too expensive for broadcasters to simulcast in 3 formats, so the old format needs to go.
This is a case of the old format preventing progression and that can't be allowed to happen just as analogue had to be turned off because it was preventing the progression to digital. You could have waited 100 years and people would have still been using analogue if switch-over hadn't occurred and that is the problem. There's a large pool of people who have tv for tv's sake, aren't interested in a better picture and so will simply use equipment until it dies or can't be replaced with the same product 2nd hand. That could easily be 30-40 years+.
SD needs to be switched off on Sat now to pave the way for 4K.
SD tv owners can still get SD via a HD box so no-one loses out big time. All that happens is those with old SD boxes (which are years old anyway) have to buy a new set top box for HD (which then downscales to SD for them). Hardly a major issue in a world of changing technology. If boxes cost a lot then maybe there would be a problem but for most we're talking less than £100 to replace something already a minimum of 3-4 years old. Hardly unreasonable especially when those same people can afford to pay a Sky subscription every month.
What a great idea, I have just deleted channel 5 from my FREESAT and Freeveiw boxes
The only content for 4k for at least the next 2 years is gaming consoles (they are still trying to develop the 8 layer BluRay technology to cope with UHD) and it will take at least another couple of years for enough content for more than a couple of channels - so you want to force at least 3 million households to upgrade and bin working boxes prematurely to make room for non-existent channels.
sorry Im not quite with you?
I doubt whether 5* and 5USA (in HD) would ever be FTA even if C5HD was, Desmond wouldn't afford it!
I bet Sky have offered this for a while now and C5 have up until now resisted in the hope of holding out for a deal on DTT. Now that's faded somewhat and with them soon to launch 5Later, they've probably given in to Sky on the grounds you and I both mentioned (the LCN 105 swap) plus the fact it might offset the 5Later launch costs too. Partly speculation of course but that's my bet.
Lets hope Sky don't help them launch 5Later (in SD) on Satellite behind a paywall or FTV too! I seriously doubt it as it's HD channels they are interested in.
But none of the others are a prime terrestrial service. This is 2013. HD has been around for eons. If channel five did not have the 'Magic Money Pot' to pay for a modern TV channel in the latest normal broadcast standard (ie HD) quality, they should not be allowed to run it. So they should have the channel taken off them & channel five given to someone who will run it properly, as per all the other terrestrial channels.
But HD is not yet the "norm" - only around 50% of the UK viewing households have the capability of watching the rest of the PSBs in HD and yet a recent survey showed that only 30% of them actually watched them in HD. So that makes only 15 to 20% of the UK viewers watch the other PSBs in HD - the average UK viewer is not as interested in HD as all the fans on here who keep on insisting that it is the be all and end all of TV, they are more interested in the content,
BTW does your comment also extend to ITV because they also chose to show the HD versions ITV2, 3 & 4 behind a paywall?
Quoted for truth.
A couple of days ago I watched a few minutes of something I'd copied from my Foxsat on my desktop. I was amazed by the detail - sitting two feet from a 27" monitor you see a lot more than sitting 12 feet from a 32" TV!
The overall quality was superb - I presume the upscaling is very competently handled.
Yet it was a standard SD transmission obviously.
Not utter rubbish at all, space needs to be made in advance for test transmissions etc.
So? It's going to cost that irrespective of whether you remove SD or not. The point is the broadcasters will be paying for both UHD and HD and SD when in fact they can claw some of that money back by broadcasting HD and UHD only. Ask the BBC if they can afford to broadcast all 3? I bet the answer is no.
Actually the BBC natural history unit are already filming in native 4K and have been doing for some time:
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/01/29/bbc-natures-meerkats-to-go-4k/
Blue Ray availability has nothing to do with broadcast whatsoever as digital content is stored on hard drives.
As for 3 million Sky customers on out of date SD boxes. Exactly what makes you think everyone will magically abandon SD in 2 years time? There are people out there on 10 year old SD boxes. The issue has to be forced as this country is at risk of getting left behind.
Japan plans to start 4K transmission in as early as 2014 according to this report.
The whole idea that Sky customers who are on SD and pay a monthly subscription can't afford to buy a new Sky box and thus need protecting is ridiculous. Its less than 2 months subscription.
Dave I would say that 50% is bull and I don't know where you've got your figures from. Nearly every tv sold for the last 5 years has had a HD Freeview tuner built in so almost every household in the UK can receive HD transmissions. Only those in non Freeview coverage areas or with tv's older than 5 years can't, and even then that fails to take account of the numbers who fall into those categories who have HD set top boxes. I would say HD reception capability is probably nearer 90%.
As for people not being interested in the picture quality, again I don't know where your figures came from but in any case there are several factors:
1. There are a percentage of people who only watch tv because its tv and don't care about quality. I would suggest these don't make up a make up 85% of viewers as you seem to suggest. If I had to guesstimate then it might be around 30% of the population that don't care about tv.
2. There is another group of viewers, who I would suggest are in the majority, who don;t always watch HD because either there is the human laziness factor ie they can't be bothered to change the channel over, or alternatively simply forget that they're there.
I have to admit myself that if I'm in the former category - if I come in towards the end of something such as a gameshow such as the Chase, then sometimes I can't be bothered to switch to the HD variant because there isn't much time left - only 10 or 15 minutes and I'll be watching Ch5 after that which means I know I'll have to switch back to SD. The problem here is that the channels aren't together and the box takes time to switch modes which makes it a hassle. So sometimes its just easier not to. That's not the fault of HD but channel location and box design.
My own elderly mother is also one of the latter category. She loves HD but can't remember the obscure channel numbers that HD is transmitted on and often forgets its there.
This is the fault of having simulcasts of both SD and HD especially where SD channels occupy the "normal" numbers and HD are scattered about on abnormal numbers.
3. Finally there are the enthusiasts who probably make up the 15-20% you were talking about above.
So I would suggest all in all the vast majority are probably in the category of often not watching HD but largely because they can't be bothered switching over except for films or football ie something special (human laziness factor) or simply forget the HD variants are there.
It would be interesting to see the figures if 101,102,103,104 were all the HD variants. I would bet quite a lot of money that the most watched channels would be HD as people wouldn't be bothered to switch to SD.
Absolute and utter crap!
There's still a decent percentage of sets been sold even now that don't have Freeview HD, and 5 years ago Freeview HD hadn't even launched and there were NO sets available.
So I would imagine FAR less than half of the sets sold over the last 5 years have Freeview HD, nothing like your imaginary 'almost all'
What you analysis above misses out are people whose screen size/viewing distance makes HD completely irrelevant.
Not everyone wants an enormous screen and not everyone likes to sit close to the set.
For people such as this HD is of no interest - unless they fool themselves into thinking they can see a clearer picture because they've been told HD is better so assume it must give a better picture under all circumstances.
You can always add a box (either just a set top box for live tv or a FreeviewHD pvr for watching and recording freeview hd content). Anyone with a HD set (be it HD Ready or FullHD) that doesn't have FreeviewHD built in, can choose to go down this route, and if they desire, use a different HD platform in the same way (eg, FreesatHD / SkyHD / CableHD boxes).
What exactly does that prove?
My parents and my in-laws both have a tv that's capable of receiving HD, but neither couldn't give a monkeys about HD and never use them for HD either.
Then you've got someone like my wife who for whatever reason chooses the SD channels when watching BBC 1 ,ITV or Ch4 when I prefer to use the HD channels.
ITV 2, 3 & 4 are not "prime terrestrial service(s)"
ITV is and it's free and in free HD
So should Channel 5's main "prime terrestrial service" be.
All this 'the HD version is not a PSB channel' is just Ofcom crap. The companies abuse semantics and some on here run with them.
It's all quite simple Channel 5 is meant to be a PSB broadcaster and therefore their main channel in whatever resolution should be free. If they can't/won't/refuse to do that then strip them of there PSB status and their name and give it to someone else who can.
Boy there is so much pedantic messing around on here.
Yes, but it's all from you
The HD channels AREN'T covered by the PSB requirements, no 'semantics', not 'pedantic' at all, but pure cold FACT!!.
The fact that YOU would like them to be doesn't make it so, and there's nothing to be done to make it any different (at the moment).
When the franchises come up again it 'might' be a different matter, but by then CH5 will have long since lost any right to the 105 slot on Freeview.