Just when you were glad the Beeb retained the rights...

Any chance of fleshing out your usual dramatic soundbites with some explantion.

The BBC's PSB commitment is unchanged, they have charters and quotas that they have to fulfill, so you're wrong anyway.

Yes but they are effectively turning something off for people who don't have a good enough connection, that was not the case with Freeview where that just added more. A lot of people don't even have a decent 2Mbps connection, let alone be able to stream HD.

yes - turning off DSAT because it failed the PVT....
How else do you judge a BBC service. ????

BUT they have an alternative and better answer ( which is also more future proof) and follows in a line of BBC development which have driven BB uptake ... and gives more streams availble than DSAT had - and costs the BBC a lot less- and is available to more people ...

Which is completely useless to people whose connection isn't fast enough, and they will lose all the ability to see multiple games or sports which they have paid for with their license fee. I'm also not convinced all the servers involved are actually that much cheaper or even cheaper at all, than a satellite transponder.

A good point, and people should stop blaming the BBC for cuts that were imposed on them for nothing more than ideological reasons.

So the BBC are closing 4 of their 5 red button satellite streams to save money by closing a transponder, as the streams aren't used for much of the time they have to go. This will mean many people will loose access to unique content or find it intolerably unreliable to watch via the net. Meanwhile the BBC have announced they have bought another satellite transponder. This will be used to simulcast much of the same content as all the other regional BBC1 SD channels and two other BBC1 HD nations channels on two new BBC1 HD nations channels with occasional national variations.

So in effect, closing one set of services on a transponder in order to be able to provide another set of services for the Nations.



http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/...ces_letter.pdf

Freeview viewers weren't too happy about it, They still want the second interactive channel to come back

OFCOM won't let them will they?

So we go from 26 channels for London 2012 to no longer being able to show the 2 main courts at Wimbledon...progress?

Dread to think what Rio 2016 will be like...1 hr highlight show perhaps?

Or maybe 24 additional channels in addition to 24 streams on the internet similar to London 2012 perhaps?

As for progress - the use of newer technology is progress. Newer technology such as streaming to your TV?

people want too much from free TV, ok you pay the TV licence, but it is still free after that.

What the BBc should do is get some decent content instead of spreading the same content around different channels.
Getting rid of the streams and replacing them with a net based system, will make no difference, the content will still be naff most of the time.

This is all very well for people who have a decent broadband connection, but those of us who struggle to receive 1 meg are bound to feel let down by the BBC. I guess most people on here don't have the problem of being on aluminium phone lines either.

What is this line meant to mean exactly? It has the words "Pay" and "Free" in the same line.

It's like saying that yes "you pay for Sky, but then it's free after that."

People do have to pay a licence fee and so have every right to question or complain about the service.

Will live sports be put on BBC HD then? F1 practice on friday could be put on BBC HD because it hasn't got any programming during the day.

If you want to watch TV, you got to have a licence, so apart from paying your licence fee, the normal channels are free, BBC, ITV, ch4, ch5 and others.

So what you get is normal TV, which is all you should expect, a few years back, you had 5 channels and that was it. sure we had Analogue text, which in my opinion was better than what the BBC offers now with their digital text service.

if you want more than go for pay TV like Sky, they will have red button galore, too much of it to be honest.


BBC should spend the money on decent content.

Myself I opted out of this TV licence and gone for on demand, far better.

It took me a while to figure out what a linear broadcast technology was. I think the majority of the general public would have the same problem with this term. Maybe the BBC could use plain English in its communications?

It would be cost-effective for me if the BBC continued to provide the current content via the red button as I'm a pensioner and don't want to have to fork out for a load of new kit which might become obsolete should another new fangled gadget come along.

I sympathise. But it's not really the BBC's doing. Cutting channels and budgets were not at their behest

so it will concentrate on catering for the minority !

Based on what I have read so far.. No, bit of a kick in the nuts for F1 too !

Maybe they did wish to start multichannel sat service, but rest assured you would have ended up aying as much, or almost as much as people do to Sky, it certainly would not have been free, and HD would not be as advanced in the UK as it is now.

It should also be pointed out that online streams are only 25p not 50i, so the motion will be useless for sport.

Online streams can be interlaced but this is rarely used, perhaps because proper deinterlacing isn't setup by default on most media players. Hopefully they'll start using proper 1080i/25 or 576i/25 video on iPlayer (and the BBC Sport app) since this will now be the only way to watch some things (e.g. Wimbledon courts).

Red Button Internet Blog home page