Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

BBC to launch five new HD channels on Freeview


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-07-2013, 00:09
kasg
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Sussex (Crystal Palace)
Posts: 2,772
And how many people are in your village? We still got streets in this city that don't have Fibre and some of them are in the centre of the city.
I'm not sure, less than 1000, but I don't see the relevance. Ironically city centre locations can suffer under the current FTTC implementation as they may be directly connected to the exchange so there is no cabinet, hence no fibre. However I would be surprised if access to superfast broadband does not match or exceed terrestrial TV coverage within 10 years.
kasg is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-07-2013, 00:10
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,475
The boxes are dirt cheap now. You don't have to upgrade it you don't want HD.
[/quote]
what do you call dirt cheap? The lowest price i have seen is about 140, which is not dirt cheap if you don't have it.
If the whole system went over to DVB2, then yes you would have to change if you want TV, even in SD.


10mb/s is fine, just tell the family to not use computers if that is all they get. More and more of the UK is fibre or at least FTTC and growing plus 4G coverage will improve dramatically within a few short years.
I have 10Mb/s and I can get Hd on netflix, but BBC Iplayer can be iffy in Hd at that speed, then again the BBC Iplayer is iffy anyway. There are still streets here that don't have FTTC and they are in the centre of the city and there are no plans for them to be done. in fact one cabinet can't be done because there is no where for the fibre cabinet to go.

4G is expensive and unless you get a good external aerial you be lucky to get a decent signal inside.
4G reliability is worse than 3G


equipment and HD tuners are more and more commonplace in new TV's, it will be the norm before long
So if the market goes that way then all well and good, but it is about time people stopped being forced. People being forced from analogue to digital, well there was plenty of people that was happy with what they had.
Of cause it is just greed, by the broadcasters and government who want to sell of the frequencies.


HD is good quality on freeview, why do you keep saying picture quality (including SD) is so bad? Its fine.
Because it is, if you can't see that then I suggest you take a closer look. It should not be just fine, it should be better than analogue and apart from being widescreen it is not better than analogue.

Its all down to choice, if people want HD then they upgrade, nobody is saying they have to do so. If they can't afford to....tough, thats life.

Yep, it is easy for you to say that, for some OAPs and housebound the Tv is all they got. but you don't give a crap about that, i'm alright Jack.

Still it is not going to happen for many years i doubt, for a start still loads of TV sets and PVRs sold with SD tuners in.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 00:20
kasg
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Sussex (Crystal Palace)
Posts: 2,772
Because it is, if you can't see that then I suggest you take a closer look. It should not be just fine, it should be better than analogue and apart from being widescreen it is not better than analogue.
Here you go again, absolute nonsense. It is much better than analogue ever was, 1920*1080 resolution. It is you that cannot see it, not the rest of us.
kasg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 00:22
MARKIV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 215
I have a 22" TV in the bedroom and I can most definitely tell the difference between SD and HD.
Well OK you can most likely say the HD picture is slightly sharper.

Go 37" up maybe you'll be pi**ed off at having to watch a channel in SD if that's all available.

Do you feel the same?
MARKIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 00:24
a516
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 4,777
Basic Freeview HD receivers are widely available under 70. Not as cheap as basic Freeview boxes, but today's announcement is designed to encourage sales and there's no reason to suggest why Freeview HD receivers won't continue to come down in price.

However, I fear this thread is turning into yet another noise747 versus The Rest of the World debate...
a516 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 01:04
neo_wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South Wales/Gran Canaria
Posts: 7,420
Yep, it is easy for you to say that, for some OAPs and housebound the Tv is all they got. but you don't give a crap about that, i'm alright Jack.


Naughty there Noise, I'm a retired nurse who also did volunteer work for age concern until a couple of years ago and help nurse my dying parents, I think my input to the care of the elderly is greater than yours or most people for that matter.


4G is coming, like the internet I've no doubt prices for packages will drop. Providers are not stupid, they will price a package at a level that will sell to the average punter and not some wealthy elite and hopefully this will ease problems for folk in more remote areas. More and more TV's already are HD ready with inbuilt tuners and give it a couple of years and I believe that will be the norm, one less box on the shelf.

Noise, HD picture quality even on a 50" is great, walk up close and not so good but sit a distance away (as you should) and the picture is wonderful. Would you rather we went back to four or five analogue channels? I certainly wouldn't and I doubt 99 out of a 100 others would either. HD is an option, you don't like it then don't use it.
neo_wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 02:34
reslfj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,810
The boxes are dirt cheap now. You don't have to upgrade it you don't want HD.
This is very wrong - It is only towards the public that the HD channels are presented as the objective.

The real goal is to get rid of the old, outdated and very expensive DVB-T transmission - for HD and for SD.

If the 700 MHz band must be released to 4G, an all DVB-T2 network will be nessesary - by 2018 or 2020.

Why DVB-T1 can continue having the digital Tick - is beyond me. Not a single DVB-T device should have been sold since like early 2011 (when a STB was first 30 ).

Lars
reslfj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 07:58
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,475
Here you go again, absolute nonsense. It is much better than analogue ever was, 1920*1080 resolution. It is you that cannot see it, not the rest of us.
But most HD stuff on Tv is not 1920x1080, that is the problem.
i can see the difference from SD digital to HD digital, but then that is because digital Sd is so bad
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 08:00
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,475
Basic Freeview HD receivers are widely available under 70. Not as cheap as basic Freeview boxes, but today's announcement is designed to encourage sales and there's no reason to suggest why Freeview HD receivers won't continue to come down in price.

However, I fear this thread is turning into yet another noise747 versus The Rest of the World debate...
We will see, I just hate this forcing people to change when they are happy with what they have.

People was pushed onto digital TV, no doubt if digital radio don't pick up people will be pushed onto that as well.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 08:10
David Waine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,629
I so agree, Noise. My first TV had one channel - BBC tv it was called then (It's called BBC1 now). It was broadcast in 405 line VHF and in black and white. About 30% of each viewing session was spent in adjusting the picture because it kept breaking up and rolling, and a fair proportion of the remaining 70% was spent watching the BBC's most viewed image of the Crystal Palace transmitter bearing the slogan, 'Normal Service Will Be Resumed As Soon As Possible'. Things were so much better then. If only the powers that be hadn't forced all these expensive 'improvements' on us, how much happier would we be?
David Waine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 08:11
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,475
Yep, it is easy for you to say that, for some OAPs and housebound the Tv is all they got. but you don't give a crap about that, i'm alright Jack.


Naughty there Noise, I'm a retired nurse who also did volunteer work for age concern until a couple of years ago and help nurse my dying parents, I think my input to the care of the elderly is greater than yours or most people for that matter.
Glad to hear it, but you still seems to think that if people don't have the money they should go without and as I said a Tv is all what some people got.

4G is coming, like the internet I've no doubt prices for packages will drop. Providers are not stupid, they will price a package at a level that will sell to the average punter and not some wealthy elite and hopefully this will ease problems for folk in more remote areas.

4G at the moment is not that great by all accounts, as soon as you get indoors the signal is naff and then the speed is not better than 3G. again we will see what happens, but I really don't think 4G is the answer.


More and more TV's already are HD ready with inbuilt tuners and give it a couple of years and I believe that will be the norm, one less box on the shelf.
I think all new tv sets are HD ready, with built in tuners, how many of them got built in HD tuners is another thing. It won't really be one less box as people will still have a PVR.

Noise, HD picture quality even on a 50" is great, walk up close and not so good but sit a distance away (as you should) and the picture is wonderful. Would you rather we went back to four or five analogue channels? I certainly wouldn't and I doubt 99 out of a 100 others would either. HD is an option, you don't like it then don't use it.
At least when we only had 5 channels we had better quality content, now it is spread so thin on so many channel and money is so tight because they are all fighting for advertising that the content is awful

Anyway I don't think people should have been pushed, we was told that we would go digital when the market was ready, but it never happened that way, government got greedy and forced it onto people

HD is a option, but if they do change the system again and force people to buy new boxes or Tv sets so soon because they want to go to DVB2, then that would be a disgrace.

People seem to have to change too often as it is and all the retuning.

I certainly made the right choice i think
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 08:49
TV Time Mike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northwest England
Posts: 806
Risking an arrow in the eye can I just say that I agree that not everyone can afford or want IPTV or HD for that matter.

Yes HD is great on a bigger TV at the right distance which isn't a choice in our home small house so small TV. Plus with my children and parents to consider the cost of IPTV, or any real form of pay TV is beyond us.

Hence sticking with freeview and TopUp TV when it was offering a full service.

Not everyone can afford to replace equipment every three years or less and companies producing and selling TV equipment can completely baffle your average person (I.E. someone who knows next to nothing beyond can I switch it on/off).

Agree that for those with 20/20 vision HD is great in the right sized room and the right distance from the TV. IPTV fine but with line rental etc. it's not that cheap. I'm on fairly tight budget at this time and it isn't set to increase so the extra cost really is a worry as long term this will mean at least two HD PVR units and the possible requirement of a new TV or two as well. I know you can get dirt cheap kit but I was brought to up buy good qaulity or a well know reliable brand that will last this throw it out and replace thing isn't in my make up so the whole view on this is beyond me.

Sad isn't it that I'm not 21st cenury compatible.
TV Time Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 10:31
neo_wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South Wales/Gran Canaria
Posts: 7,420
Glad to hear it, but you still seems to think that if people don't have the money they should go without and as I said a Tv is all what some people got.
If people don't have the money then yes, they have to do without some things, thats life in general and people won't be without a TV service will they so quit the personal attack on my character now.
neo_wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 10:43
Spot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Norwich, Tacolneston tx
Posts: 20,261
Some of us are well able to afford anything we might want, but frankly I don't watch much TV other than news and business programmes which I will have on in the background without actually sitting and staring at the screen. When I do watch, my programmes of choice are often old programmes made many years or even decades ago - I'm now enjoying seeing Rumpole of the Bailey on UKTV Drama.

My sets are all CRTs which give me perfectly adequate picture quality for what I want and Freeview SD looks fine to me, and - this does amuse me - superior sound quality to many sets you have to pay hundreds of pounds for today.

So it isn't all about what people can afford. If I had to, I could go out and buy all the latest gadgetry. I just choose not to as what I've got is perfectly adequate for my needs, and in fact gives me a superior viewing experience in some ways.
Spot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 11:35
DragonQ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,298
My sets are all CRTs which give me perfectly adequate picture quality for what I want and Freeview SD looks fine to me, and - this does amuse me - superior sound quality to many sets you have to pay hundreds of pounds for today.
Yeah this is generally true. Tis why I have an AVR and proper speakers.
DragonQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 15:56
Winston_1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,184
BBC News HD, BBC Three HD, BBC Four HD, CBBC HD and CBeebies HD are to launch by early 2014. Great news.
It is 3 channels not 5. CBBC and CBeebies just change their names a 1900 so same channels, different names.
Winston_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 16:21
OwenSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,774
It's always been said you'll only notice HD on screen sizes of 37" and above. To make get the best of it you really need to go 46" and above..
I can easily see the difference between HD and SD on my 26 inch TV and can tell when the HD channels are broadcasting upscaled SD. It depends on how far away from it you sit as well as how large the screen is you know. I'm 1.8m from my TV and can't get any further away.

EDIT: by the way I'm 47 years old and my eyesight is far from perfect. If you can't tell the difference, either everything you watch is upscaled SD or you need new glasses.
OwenSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 17:04
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 38,272
It is 3 channels not 5. CBBC and CBeebies just change their names a 1900 so same channels, different names.
Yes, I always thing it's a terrible con claiming multiple 'channels' when they simple time share the same channel.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 17:07
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
My only set is a 4:3 CRT which give me brilliant picture quality for what I want and, to quote Spot Freeview
SD looks fine to me, and - this does amuse me - superior sound quality to many sets you have to pay hundreds of pounds for today
And the BBC Parliament 60 year rewind to the Coronation Live on 2nd June 1953 last moth was really enjoyable on a CRT.
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 17:10
technologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,232
Yes, I always thing it's a terrible con claiming multiple 'channels' when they simple time share the same channel.
They share the same stream but they are diferent services both technically and regulatoraliy .
.. Thus separate channels ... On a timex basis,
technologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 17:23
ndev70
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: North Devon
Posts: 76
Arqiva have said that coverage of the two new T2 multiplexes will be 70% instead of the minimum 50% required.

Does anyone know if all the main DTT transmitters will be upgraded?

I ask because the last article I read about this (before this weeks announcement) stated that my local high power transmitter - Huntshaw Cross - would not be upgraded.

And my second option transmitter - Caradon Hill - would only carry the two new T2 multiplexes at low power.
ndev70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 17:35
OwenSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,774
Arqiva have said that coverage of the two new T2 multiplexes will be 70% instead of the minimum 50% required.

Does anyone know if all the main DTT transmitters will be upgraded?

I ask because the last article I read about this (before this weeks announcement) stated that my local high power transmitter - Huntshaw Cross - would not be upgraded.

And my second option transmitter - Caradon Hill - would only carry the two new T2 multiplexes at low power.
Not all main transmitters will be upgraded, Subduy misses out for example. There are other articles on DS giving the list.

EDIT: see this:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1855053
OwenSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 17:53
Greebo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,001
For anyone trying to work out the details for their local tx, I strongly recommend looking at the following Arqiva document:

http://www.arqiva.com/documentation/...start%20v9.pdf

Appendix A in there (page 9) shows where the layer 7/8 transmitters for each site are coming from. I'm most interested in Winter Hill - and we're going to be getting a couple of transmitters from Croydon that if I understand it correctly would have been the backups for BBC1 and BBC2 analogue in case of failure or engineering at Crystal Palace.

edit: Arqiva not Ofcom!
Greebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 18:05
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 38,272
They share the same stream but they are diferent services both technically and regulatoraliy .
.. Thus separate channels ... On a timex basis,
Still a con - hiding the fact that it's not what the public think it means, presumably deliberately so?.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2013, 18:25
Paddy C
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,893
Would you say BBC THREE and CBBC are the same channel now (same for BBC FOUR/CBeebies? So essentially, the BBC only has 7 channels instead of 9?
Paddy C is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29.