Originally Posted by Star Attraction:
“B1 = BBC1
B2 = BBC2
B3 = BBC3
B4 = BBC4
B5 = CBBC
B6 = CBeebies
B7 = BBC News 24
B8 = BBC Parliament”
At the risk of generating further conversation on this strange (and possibly a joke) topic, does this not make the identity of each BBC channel harder to determine? BBC One to Four is fine (though B4 clashes with the existing B4 music channel, which is presumably given a different code), but then there's no logical reason I can see that CBBC comes next as B5, aside from its arbitrary placement on Freeview. In fact the existing system on the Sky EPG comes across as superior there due to News 24 and Parliament using 5
xx for news/documentaries (8
x on Freeview?) and CBBC/Beebies using 6
xx for younger channels (6
x on Freeview?). A shorthand system should be immediately logical or there is little benefit to using it, reducing it just to a different system to learn rather than a superior one. It would make more sense personally to include some reference to content within the code of broadcasters that cover a wide range of channels:
B1 = BBC1
B2 = BBC2
B3 = BBC3
B4 = BBC4
BC1 = CBBC
BC2 = CBeebies
BN1 = BBC News 24
BN2 = BBC Parliament
This immediately separates the numbered channels (making room for a BBC5 and up if the BBC were ever inclined to go that way) and putting the
Children's channels in a group together in a sensible order, and the
News channels in another, clear group. It also then covers Freeview, Sky or any other system as long as they have the channels, and even safeguards against any EPG reshuffling that could switch the order of the channels. Of course, a code like BC1 is only one letter away from BBC1 which for some reason needed shortening originally.
Ultimately though I don't see the point. Unless you can recode the EPG of whatever system you are using to access the channels so that it accepts these codes you're just creating an additional level of complication.
"Can you put it on B7 please?"
"Okay. B7... That's News 24, which is 504."
Rather than:
"Can you put it on 504 please?" (if somebody is unfamiliar with the channel code I refer to it by that code)
"Okay."
But even if you could code the channels like that it doesn't really achieve anything. On a remote such as the Sky remote to type 101 for BBC1 I would press
1 then
0 then
1. To type B1 would requre pressing
1 twice quickly to get 'B' (assuming it followed mobile phone typing rules rather than having 26 letter buttons and 10 number buttons on a remote) follow by
1 again for '1'. Except that would bring up either the letter 'C' or, if it reset, the letter 'A'. So you would maybe have to hold the 1 button to get the number 1, or press an additional button to switch between letters and numbers. Presumably that's why channels are accessed purely by numbers rather than a combination of letters and numbers, it's too complicated.
So as a system it is not immediately obvious to the uninitiated, and has no practical use as a replacement for the existing system (indeed, it seems to add extra complication). So while there is an element of logic behind grouping channels into their own codes, there doesn't seem to be any logical application for such a system.