Originally Posted by theShadowman:
“If the BBC HD quality is somewhat less than perfect and the sound is dubious in some cases. What have we left? The problem is; we cannot vote with our feet. There is nowhere to go. If Sky were responsible for the quality of broadcasts, we as viewers could just move to another company such as Virgin. But if the BBC decide that quality is not an issue worth persuing, what do we do? There are many excellent programs coming from the BBC, shouldn't we be able to expect broadcast quality to match.
If for instance "Strictly Come Dancing" is your favourite program you cant just switch over to another broadcaster, so you are stuck with poor quality and it shouldn't be like that. We as licence payers are entitled to the best. If the BBC says it cant afford the best, let them stop paying huge amounts of money to the likes of Jonathon Ross, and put the money into investment instead”
Why are the BBC paying £800K for someone to read the news? I was not aware that tere was a world wide shortage of Newsreaders
I dont understand why the BBC does not precompress or buffer the data. That way you get decent HD quality. Take a look at the Luxe HD and compare it to what goes as HD on the BBC. Luxe precompress their programes and the differences is staggering
Given most programes except sport & news are recorded there is no reason why the BBC could not do it.
I would sooner have good HD then the sliht improvement on SD that the BBC call HD