[Paddy C]

According to the Freeview page on Wikipedia this is true. Has this been confirmed anywhere?

Now, before everyone scoffs and says "It's Wikipedia..." etc. I am well aware of it's reputation, but many of the bigger pages are strictly monitored and anything incorrect on there is very swiftly removed. I changed something on the Freeview page once and it was about 5 seconds after I have saved it that I refreshed the page and it had been reverted back and a comment left by someone else telling me I was wrong and to leave the page alone!

[DragonQ]

Where would they go? I thought there wasn't any space left.

EDIT: According to this diagram on UK Free TV, there's space for one more channel on SDN and that's it.

ESPN, Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 would probably have to leave before any new services could be launched (which BT is apparently planning at some point...dunno how Top-Up TV is involved in this).

[Sue_Aitch]

I suppose there might be and bit more room on COM muxes once the DSO has finished?

Yeah, I am clutching at straws!

[DragonQ]

This is already post-DSO, look at the "After switchover configuration" diagram. Adding one more service to SDN would mean all SD channels are sharing ~3 Mbps (although this doesn't take into account the fact that some space is used for data and radio services). So you're looking at ~2.5 Mbps video. Dropping below that would be ridiculous - it's already too low IMO.

[Ray Cathode]

If 5*+1 and 5USA+1 were to come to Freeview, it would be on Channel 5 gifted capacity (50% of SDN) which is presently occupied by ESPN/TUTV and a vacant stream (except Wales). That would mean the end of TUTV Favourites as we know it.

[tomee]

Originally Posted by Paddy C

According to the Freeview page on Wikipedia this is true. Has this been confirmed anywhere?

Now, before everyone scoffs and says "It's Wikipedia..." etc. I am well aware of it's reputation, but many of the bigger pages are strictly monitored and anything incorrect on there is very swiftly removed. I changed something on the Freeview page once and it was about 5 seconds after I have saved it that I refreshed the page and it had been reverted back and a comment left by someone else telling me I was wrong and to leave the page alone!

Cant find any thing about it on the web do you have a link please or as it been removed.

I will email channel5.

[Muzer]

It was an unsourced addition added by someone without an account, most likely pulled out of you-know-where. It's been removed from the page now.

Wikipedia's good if you know how to use it - any dubious-looking statements should have a source at the bottom. Since this one didn't, it's probably not true I'm afraid.


Of course, it's possible that someone WITH inside knowledge added it and it IS true, but that would still be removed if they can't get a source (how are Wikipedia editors supposed to know the difference between someone who knows their stuff and someone making up rumours? That's why in general, original research isn't allowed on Wikipedia.)

[Paddy C]

The information has been taken off Wikipedia now, but it did say they would be launching on channels 63 and 64. I guess it was total rubbish after all!

[AngusMast]

I looked at the person's edit history, he put up that 5USA and 5USA+1 are closing on all platforms in 2013. So he either has very good inside knowledge or just makes stuff up

[bearbum72]

this better b tripe! I WANT PICTURE QUALITY not bloddy +1's. EJECT all +1 channels and let the picture quality improve. untill this happens im not going hd, I mean why would u ? you may as well give the money to a bloody stranger.

[Muzer]

Then you'll never go HD.

[DragonQ]

Originally Posted by bearbum72

this better b tripe! I WANT PICTURE QUALITY not bloddy +1's. EJECT all +1 channels and let the picture quality improve. untill this happens im not going hd, I mean why would u ? you may as well give the money to a bloody stranger.

I don't understand your logic. HD quality is still far better than SD, especially on Freeview. There are also no HD +1 channels, AFAIK. In fact, the HD channels on Freeview are its one saving grace, image quality wise.

The highest average bit-rate you'll see on SD is ~3.5 Mbps MPEG2 (only BBC One ever goes above this), which is equivalent to ~1.75 Mbps AVC. HD has 5 times the resolution of SD, so that means you should get a similarly artefact-free image with ~8.75 Mbps, which is nearly what you get on Freeview. But remember that statistical multiplexing means the bit-rate will rise when necessary and lower when not needed. Also note that artefacts will be harder to see on HD anyway because there's more pixels for them to hide in.

Basically with HD you get 5 times the detail and no visible blocking. HD on satellite is even better since the bit-rates are higher (10-15 Mbps for entertainment/film channels, 15-20 Mbps for sports).

[tghe-retford]

Originally Posted by bearbum72

this better b tripe! I WANT PICTURE QUALITY not bloddy +1's. EJECT all +1 channels and let the picture quality improve. untill this happens im not going hd, I mean why would u ? you may as well give the money to a bloody stranger.

For that to happen, you would need multiplex ownership to go back to the public sector and for Britain to abandon free market capitalism.

With Labour and the Tories swapping power between one another, neither is going to happen, and choice (money) will win over bitrate every single time. Just look at DAB.

Could be worse, some Italian satellite channels broadcast in half the resolution of a Freeview commercial channel with mono DAB quality sound or dire stereo worse than on the UK's DAB system.

+1's are here to stay.

[DragonQ]

Originally Posted by tghe-retford

For that to happen, you would need multiplex ownership to go back to the public sector and for Britain to abandon free market capitalism.

That is not necessary at all. OFCOM could define a minimum standard for video and audio quality. Done.

[2Bdecided]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

That is not necessary at all. OFCOM could define a minimum standard for video and audio quality. Done.

Hardly - look where they set the minimum audio quality for DAB!

IIRC correctly, there is some regulation regarding picture quality for the 5 PSB channels, but it's quite woolly. I think there's a reference to some examples of unacceptable artefacts, and a footnote saying they haven't created the examples yet. That was years ago. I might have dreamed this though! (yes, very sad if I did, but...!)

Cheers,
David.

[joshua_welby]

Originally Posted by 2Bdecided

Hardly - look where they set the minimum audio quality for DAB!

IIRC correctly, there is some regulation regarding picture quality for the 5 PSB channels, but it's quite woolly. I think there's a reference to some examples of unacceptable artefacts, and a footnote saying they haven't created the examples yet. That was years ago. I might have dreamed this though! (yes, very sad if I did, but...!)

Cheers,
David.

You have not dreamt it, OFCOM do regulate Picture Quality and so do the BBC Trust

[jra]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

That is not necessary at all. OFCOM could define a minimum standard for video and audio quality. Done.

They set minimum standards all right. As low as possible. OFCOM were/are never there for the benefit of the viewer, IMO, only the broadcasters, what with the endless teleshopping you get, various other shopping and so-called adult channels etc.

[tghe-retford]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

That is not necessary at all. OFCOM could define a minimum standard for video and audio quality. Done.

Originally Posted by 2Bdecided

Hardly - look where they set the minimum audio quality for DAB!

Ofcom do set standards for video and audio to knowledge, the problem is that they contradict what the multiplex operators and channels want. Multiplex operators want as many channels as they can fit to maximise profit whilst channels want to reduce the cost of a slot. Ofcom is a free market capitalist media regulator, preventing the free market from maximising profit by reducing bitrates and quality isn't following their principle or the ideology of the Government above them.

Wasn't it not so long ago when Cameron wanted a bonfire of the Quango's, with Ofcom in the main firing line because Ofcom could have been a threat to Rupert Murdoch's wish for 100% of BSkyB as well as allowing Sky Picnic if Sky wished even though the overwhelming correspondence was against the proposed plan?

Ofcom is a free market capitalist media regulator. Business interests come first, consumer interest if it doesn't conflict. +1's, low bitrates and mono sound in many cases are here to stay I am afraid.

[EEPhil]

Originally Posted by jra

They set minimum standards all right. As low as possible. OFCOM were/are never there for the benefit of the viewer, IMO, only the broadcasters, what with the endless teleshopping you get, various other shopping and so-called adult channels etc.

I have to agree with you.

Back in the "good old days" of 2 or 3 channels when the ITA/IBA regulated ITV/(ITV/C4+ILR) there were standards that were to the benefit of the viewer. Proper reports of poor quality broadcasts. (IBA Technical Reference Book shows a monitoring station in each region reporting on the off-air picture quality etc). Advertising, in particular the positioning of breaks within acquired programmes, was well regulated. Product placement - banned. And so on.

The ITC - Despite the propaganda of "We're here to ITC they don't get away with it" - seemed to rule in favour of the broadcasters not the viewer.

Ofcom - Don't seem to be very interested in the viewers.

[pzboyz]

But both these channels repeat most things 2 or 3 times a week anyway, there is no need for these channels to have a +1 version.

[jra]

Originally Posted by EEPhil

I have to agree with you.

Back in the "good old days" of 2 or 3 channels when the ITA/IBA regulated ITV/(ITV/C4+ILR) there were standards that were to the benefit of the viewer. Proper reports of poor quality broadcasts. (IBA Technical Reference Book shows a monitoring station in each region reporting on the off-air picture quality etc). Advertising, in particular the positioning of breaks within acquired programmes, was well regulated. Product placement - banned. And so on.

The ITC - Despite the propaganda of "We're here to ITC they don't get away with it" - seemed to rule in favour of the broadcasters not the viewer.

Ofcom - Don't seem to be very interested in the viewers.

OFCOMs many mistakes are numerous.

Allowing Teleshopping to have slots longer than 3 hours if required, as if 3 hour ad breaks weren't enough.
Allowing subscription channels to broadcast on the Freeview spectrum.
Allowing pay channels to exist on the DTT platform in the first place, such as TopUP TV, Sky Sports and ESPN etc. DTT was originally designed to be a FTA platform for those who didn't want Sky or Virgin Media, which at least 95% of the country can get if they want to.
Not allocating enough DTT spectrum in the first place, so we have a very crammed system, with low video and audio bit rates.
Not regulating advert breaks sufficiently, so it's almost getting to the point where the programming interrupts the adverts.
And how many shopping channels and pseudo porn channels do you need. It's just ridiculous, the amount of bandwidth being used for these.
etc.

The amount of wasted bandwidth due to Teleshopping, shopping and pseudo porn channels on DTT is shocking and it should have never been allowed.

And it doesn't help matters that Sky were allowed to put virtually everything in terms of decent programming wise behind a pay wall, meaning Freeview just gets the off cuts (other than the usual 5) and that Sky subscriptions led to a huge increase in channels (including +1s), that advertising alone couldn't support, thus meaning most channels have very diluted programming, leading to endless repeats.

Still a 5 channel + 1 or two is much more welcome than a shopping channel or more bleeding Teleshopping.

[DragonQ]

Originally Posted by jra

DTT was originally designed to be a FTA platform for those who didn't want Sky or Virgin Media, which at least 95% of the country can get if they want to.

Um what? DTT was originally designed to compete with Sky. Remember On Digital and later ITV Digital?

[jra]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

Um what? DTT was originally designed to compete with Sky. Remember On Digital and later ITV Digital?

Yeah point taken. I was talking about after the demise of ITV Digital.

ITV Digital wasn't that bad at the time, although a bit expensive for what you got.

[Dancc]

Originally Posted by pzboyz

But both these channels repeat most things 2 or 3 times a week anyway, there is no need for these channels to have a +1 version.

You could say the same thing about 4Seven. Who really needs 7 opportunities to watch Deal or No Deal?

Personally I would use 5USA+1 more than 4Seven but I doubt this story is true.

In any case, C5 really needs to make C5 HD their priority on DTT now. Not more +1 channels.

[Muzer]

Originally Posted by jra

Not allocating enough DTT spectrum in the first place, so we have a very crammed system, with low video and audio bit rates.

We have more DTT spectrum than most other countries.

Not regulating advert breaks sufficiently, so it's almost getting to the point where the programming interrupts the adverts.

Go to America. Then come back and say that. You'll realise how ridiculous you are.

And how many shopping channels and pseudo porn channels do you need. It's just ridiculous, the amount of bandwidth being used for these.

The amount of wasted bandwidth due to Teleshopping, shopping and pseudo porn channels on DTT is shocking and it should have never been allowed.

I seem to remember counting it in another thread a while back, and finding (unsurprisingly) that it's a very low proportion of Freeview bandwidth taken up by this. I can't be bothered to find it, however.