There's nothing wrong at all with the closedown on BBC2 overnight as it is at present. Hope it remains at least rather than just filling it all with programmes all 365 days of the year just for the sake of it.

Just because BBC2's a mainstream channel doesn't mean all 24 hours a day every single day of the year every year should broadcast programmes.

However that is not the situation in reality, as any closedown is for part of the small hours (3 hours or so, in some cases only an hour or so).


I am not sure that closedown with pages from Ceefax is that much cheaper than showing repeated programming or a BBC News simulcast (both of which DO provide a service at present). Of course, there would be savings, but they are likely to be comparatively small when set against the service that might be provided for those that are available to watch.


If that programming provides a service, or provides an opportunity for people to watch programming at a time when they are free, then why not. Not everyone works, not everyone iworks "9-5", not everyone sleeps for 8 hrs overnight

They could find space if they wanted. Even on Freeview there's at least one channel that's recycling the same stuff over and over and over that could be ditched for an hour to make way for sign language at prime time.

However, broadcasters only do signing because they're forced into it, hence why it's on at a time for insomniacs.

Or perhaps it is on at a time that is likely to cause the least concern for those who do not need signing, with more than a nod to the notion that programming in the early hours can be recorded (and that this is probably what those who do use signing would do).

I can imagine the outcry if peaktime programming outside of the Red Button was signed, we would never hear the last of it from some posters.

OK, you might have a point about using the Red Button for an hour in primetime, however what about the other main broadcasters who do not carry any MHEG services? This issue is not restricted to the BBC.

They could make it an option both ways, so late at night, conversely, a regular version would be available on red whereas the main broadcast is the signed one.


The BBC seem to be the only broadcaster that are duty-bound to implement services on Freeview whereas commercial ones get away with putting them on Sky and/or cable only.

Which channel, and would they be willing to give it up for such a service?

Replace various elements of the interactive services to get a reasonable picture for the hour or however long the programme lasts.

An option yes, but one that would not address the outcry that would present itself, especially if 6 or 8 million viewers were told that they had to wait until the early hours to watch or record their programme.



So, what would be the solution? Tighten up the regulations? However, what about bandwidth issues for the Freeview channels?

I don't get what you mean with that. What I'm proposing means that, effectively, both the signed and regular versions are available at both broadcast times, rather than one or the other as it is now.


The solution is to apply common sense and realise that you cannot fit a quart into a pint pot. I've always said that it's a bit of a waste of time putting HD on Freeview because it takes away bandwith from a lot of choice that people used to have (eg. BBC's channel 302 and their other red button services like the news multiscreen) and that if you really want HD then go get Sky or cable.

Some people will then say, "Oh, but what about those who want HD but don't want Sky?" and I've always said that those who are happy with Freeview are the casual type of viewers who wouldn't care about HD and if they did then they'd get a proper setup. Since having seen just how unimpressive Freeview HD is, I'm even more convinced about this because it's not a patch on what you can download from US shows, for example (I haven't seen Sky or Virgin HD images but I'd wager that they're certainly not worse than Freeview HD).

"Casual viewers" I base on friends and family who just casually watch the TV. They don't care about 1080p this and pixel that, they just want to watch Corrie when it's on.

As for the BBC, regulations should be changed such that just because they come up with something that would be a good add-on for Sky and cable, they shouldn't *have* to put it on Freeview as well. When they wanted BBC1HD, sacrfices had to be made so it could go on Freeview as well, but there's no logic for that. Freeview has limited resources whereas Sky and Virgin have so much more space for extra things.

Very much agree with that could not believe the BBC axed 2 out of the 3 interactive streams to make way for HD on DTT/Freeview, there just isn't the bandwidth for it!!

I'd be willing to bet that there would still be an outcry even if the unsigned version were to be available on the Red Button peaktime (and I think that the Red Button stream is of a lower resolution than the main channel feed).


What you fail to acknowledge is that Freeview HD is now here, and being enjoyed by many, a number increasing with each DSO, with each passing month. Enjoyed by people who have already bought into the technology, enjoyed by people who, for a number of reasons, are unable to utilise cable or satellite.
So you cannot simply turn back the clock and take it away from them without a massive public outcry. You have to deal with the situation as is, not how it should have been or could have been.

With that in mind, the ideal solution would be to allocate more spectrum to DTT, and at the same time increase the number of muxes that utilise DVB-T2. But that would have cost and revenue implications all round.

So, on balance, seeing as this is all due to an idea to have signing available during all broadcast hours via the Red Button or otherwise, it does seem like an overly-complicated and expensive solution to what is seemingly not a critical issue as far as the general viewing public is concerned.

[quote=mossy2103;51315416]I'd be willing to bet that there would still be an outcry even if the unsigned version were to be available on the Red Button peaktime (and I think that the Red Button stream is of a lower resolution than the main channel feed).

No, still not with you. The unsigned version would be on the red button only at the time when the signed version is being shown on regular TV, and vice versa.


You asked a question and I told you my position on it. Just because Freeview HD is here doesn't mean it can't be discussed as to what would've been better.

Casual viewers buy flatscreen TVs knowing no more about what '1080p' means any more than I do about the inner workings of my car engine if someone was to explain it to me. When it comes to HD for the casual viewer, "the public gets what the public wants(!)" as Paul Weller once put it.


Well, you could use a better system, for sure, but a typical government does everything half-arsed and that's why we have what we have as well as DAB.


I didn't say you had to have signing available during all broadcast hours. There's only a handful of programmes that use it.

It leads on from your original comment about putting signing on the main channel at peaktime. In that instance I would stake my life on there being many complaints even though the Red Button coverage existed.


I have not said that it cannot be discussed, however I have said that it's a discussion that has been superceded by events. It's fine talking about what should have been. We can do that till the cows come home. But such talk is, in my view, missing the point, the point being "we are where we are" (as one of my old managers used to say). Talk of scrapping what we have is illusory, as now the genie is out of the bottle. So any practical talk (and hence, a solution that is at least practical with those circumstances in mind) should I feel reflect the current situation and current viewer expectations. Scrapping HD on Freeview satisfies neither.


We agree on that one.




Granted, although you were talking at one stage about having it at peaktime. My statement still stands.

It is quite possible that, if your proposal (however flawed) was accepted, there would be likely to be a natural progression to extending signing to more programming (which in itself would not necessarily be a bad thing, but which would make the flaws even more public).

You've misunderstood what I've said. To explain in more detail, say if it was Holby City, I propose the regular version would be on BBC1 and the signed on red button. At 1am or whenever it is, it would be the other way round, so that way, the main channel is unaffected and the alternative version is available to all.


They could sign more programmes, that would be up to the broadcaster. I don't have need of signed programmes myself, but if I miss something then I'd rather catch a repeat of a late regular showing on my TV than a signed one (I don't have a unit which displays Iplayer on my TV)

Ah, I see. i did misunderstand.

Which bits? The ones you don't like/watch I assume? You can't see the problem with that?

No probs.


? ? ? Ooh, three separate questions....

One example would be using 301 when it's just showing the same few mins of rolling sports news or repeats of kids TV, which seems to be running long after kids have gone to bed, which seems rather odd.

As for whether they could do it with other elements, I don't know how much bandwidth each of them take up and how much extra they would need to do the necessary. With a full breakdown, I could draw up a list for you.

And for the people who find those useful? (I assume they're there for good reason.)

Carl, let me know when you have something to contribute other than ONLY playing Devil's Advocate. Actually, no, don't bother.

So no actual reply with a defence of your position then? So it was only all about what you want? Should I be surprised?