If ITV, Channel or Channel 5 only broadcast in HD they could legitimately place those channels at 103 to 105 on Sky and be entirely compliant with the Act.
Really? So then the HD version (being the only version) would become the version that is PSB?
Really? So then the HD version (being the only version) would become the version that is PSB?
The Act does not make any distinction between SD and HD simply referring to services available in a digital form. Ipso facto (as we lawyers say!) if the only version of a channel within the definitions covered by the Act is an HD channel that is no less a public service channel than an SD only version would have been.
It is also necessary to not confuse public service channels with PSBs (Public Service Broadcasters). They are different.
The Act does not make any distinction between SD and HD simply referring to services available in a digital form. Ipso facto (as we lawyers say!) if the only version of a channel within the definitions covered by the Act is an HD channel that is no less a public service channel than an SD only version would have been.
It is also necessary to not confuse public service channels with PSBs (Public Service Broadcasters). They are different.
OK so if all the public service channels went HD only (including regional content) (and the SD boxes had been rendered useless by a DSO part 2), then as long as they provided a digital public service at 1-5 (101-105) they would be in compliance with the 2003 comms act?
OK so if all the public service channels went HD only (including regional content) (and the SD boxes had been rendered useless by a DSO part 2), then as long as they provided a digital public service at 1-5 (101-105) they would be in compliance with the 2003 comms act?
Essentially yes. To make it clear though so far as the Act is concerned any responsibility as to placement of channels within an EPG rests primarily with the operator of any EPG covered by the Act eg Sky. It is their responsibility to give relevant prominence to the public service channels as defined by the Act. So if BBC One is a public service channel within the Act (which it is) and it is only available in HD form to Sky (obviously not yet the case) then Sky have to give it due prominence within their EPG ie BBC One (HD) goes at 101.
Essentially yes. To make it clear though so far as the Act is concerned any responsibility as to placement of channels within an EPG rests primarily with the operator of any EPG covered by the Act eg Sky. It is their responsibility to give relevant prominence to the public service channels as defined by the Act. So if BBC One is a public service channel within the Act (which it is) and it is only available in HD form to Sky (obviously not yet the case) then Sky have to give it due prominence within their EPG ie BBC One (HD) goes at 101.
Ok cool That makes sense! But it doesnt explain how C5 can get away with essentially making, what is effectively a public service channel, (albeit in HD, but from what you say that makes no odds), a pay channel!
There needs to just be a clarification one way or another, with the commercial public service channels, within the act, that says that all resolutions count as public service channels, or only SD channels!
As C5 are taking a different view to what your saying and I agree with!
Ok cool That makes sense! But it doesnt explain how C5 can get away with essentially making, what is effectively a public service channel, (albeit in HD, but from what you say that makes no odds), a pay channel!
There needs to just be a clarification one way or another, with the commercial public service channels, within the act, that says that all resolutions count as public service channels, or only SD channels!
As C5 are taking a different view to what your saying and I agree with!
Good point. My view is that if Channel 5 were only available in HD form then it could no longer remain only receivable by those paying the HD charges applied by Sky. However, whilst it is available in both SD and HD formats only one of those channels is required to be FTA or FTV in order to satisfy the wording of the Act. As only Channel 5 SD is receivable by the entirety of the intended audience that must be FTA/FTV.
Good point. My view is that if Channel 5 were only available in HD form then it could no longer remain only receivable by those paying the HD charges applied by Sky. However, whilst it is available in both SD and HD formats only one of those channels is required to be FTA or FTV in order to satisfy the wording of the Act. As only Channel 5 SD is receivable by the entirety of the intended audience that must be FTA/FTV.
Well as for FTA vs FTV I would think now that PSBs need to make their public service channels FTA on Dsat and DTT, else they cant meet the requirements of the act. That is now freesat is in existance!
Dcab is of course different as you have to subscribe to a cable company to get it though them in the first place!
As for the only one version is required, well that would mean that C5 could block their other advertising regions, if they wanted to, meaning that only one version would be on air! I can't actually see that happening though!
I think the loophole needs fixing one way or another though, then everyone can be clear!
Also if an amendment is being made to make a public service channel mean any resolution that it is broadcast in (as in making it in print!), then the EPG priority situation could be updated, to be that a highest quality resolution is placed in the priority position unless the regional content is unavailable, or the receiving equipment cannot decode the higher resolution signal.
Comments
Really? So then the HD version (being the only version) would become the version that is PSB?
The Act does not make any distinction between SD and HD simply referring to services available in a digital form. Ipso facto (as we lawyers say!) if the only version of a channel within the definitions covered by the Act is an HD channel that is no less a public service channel than an SD only version would have been.
It is also necessary to not confuse public service channels with PSBs (Public Service Broadcasters). They are different.
OK so if all the public service channels went HD only (including regional content) (and the SD boxes had been rendered useless by a DSO part 2), then as long as they provided a digital public service at 1-5 (101-105) they would be in compliance with the 2003 comms act?
Essentially yes. To make it clear though so far as the Act is concerned any responsibility as to placement of channels within an EPG rests primarily with the operator of any EPG covered by the Act eg Sky. It is their responsibility to give relevant prominence to the public service channels as defined by the Act. So if BBC One is a public service channel within the Act (which it is) and it is only available in HD form to Sky (obviously not yet the case) then Sky have to give it due prominence within their EPG ie BBC One (HD) goes at 101.
Ok cool That makes sense! But it doesnt explain how C5 can get away with essentially making, what is effectively a public service channel, (albeit in HD, but from what you say that makes no odds), a pay channel!
There needs to just be a clarification one way or another, with the commercial public service channels, within the act, that says that all resolutions count as public service channels, or only SD channels!
As C5 are taking a different view to what your saying and I agree with!
Good point. My view is that if Channel 5 were only available in HD form then it could no longer remain only receivable by those paying the HD charges applied by Sky. However, whilst it is available in both SD and HD formats only one of those channels is required to be FTA or FTV in order to satisfy the wording of the Act. As only Channel 5 SD is receivable by the entirety of the intended audience that must be FTA/FTV.
Well as for FTA vs FTV I would think now that PSBs need to make their public service channels FTA on Dsat and DTT, else they cant meet the requirements of the act. That is now freesat is in existance!
Dcab is of course different as you have to subscribe to a cable company to get it though them in the first place!
As for the only one version is required, well that would mean that C5 could block their other advertising regions, if they wanted to, meaning that only one version would be on air! I can't actually see that happening though!
I think the loophole needs fixing one way or another though, then everyone can be clear!
Also if an amendment is being made to make a public service channel mean any resolution that it is broadcast in (as in making it in print!), then the EPG priority situation could be updated, to be that a highest quality resolution is placed in the priority position unless the regional content is unavailable, or the receiving equipment cannot decode the higher resolution signal.