What are you on about? I have access to three versions of iPlayer via my TV - through Sky, through my TV's smart function and through my Blu-ray player. Each is staggeringly easy to use, and gives me a high quality picture on my TV that is indistinguishable from a broadcast image. I'm hardly alone in this, and very few people lack the necessary broadband bandwidth to do this.

And yes, you do pay your TV licence to watch streaming video. It's all part of, as the BBC put it, 'making the unmissable unmissable'.

Though via a Sky box (and I assume Virgin as well), that iPlayer copy isn't streamed but downloaded.


There is no way on earth that is easier or better than via iPlayer.


That's just silly. iPlayer is highly rated by its users, has won design awards, is seen as a pioneer in the world of catch-up TV, and is being used more and more each year. What possible rational reason could there be for shutting it down?

You arguments are getting((?) really quite desperate now.

And the award for the dopiest post of the week goes to...

I think it's just us, ntscuser, who prefer to watch DW live.

The rest of the posters on here should be excommunicated from the forum immediately.

Personally, I watch very little TV. If something isn't important enough for me to make an effort to watch it live, then I won't usually bother watching it on later. DW used to be the exception to that - if I was out when it was on, I'd watch it on iplayer at the first opportunity.

I'm not sure that's true any more. It's not been tested yet.

And that is one of the reasons the figures for people watching the show properly are falling.

Yes, and leaving aside the use of the term "properly", that is wrong in what way?

So why do they bother to 'contribute' to a thread on the subject?

Oh, I much prefer to watch Who live, sorry, I mean "properly", but stuff happens, y'know!

Well, this an old thread about ratings that covers a lot of ground, man.

I give up. Life's too short for anymore of this nonsense.

There's one very good and that is it is adversely affecting the ratings for Dr Who, or at least the ratings for those who watch it properly.

If you can't tell the difference in picture quality between streaming video and a proper broadcast or between streaming video and an expert video capture that is your problem and not mine.


It seems to me the people in denial about Dr Who's falling ratings are the ones who are getting desperate.

Yes indeed, "stuff" such as there is a programme on another channel you would rather watch.

Fortunately I don't think many people in England will want to watch their team being hammered by the Aussies but I could be wrong.

More ratings to discuss tomorrow; this thread has thrashed on for another whole week with barely a dip.

Hurrah!

It was higher 5 years ago when posts weren't fragmented across several different from platforms!

1) Don't be selfish.

2) Who the hell are you to say who is watching 'properly'?


You're wrong. Factually wrong. Most of the population can stream from iPlayer at a bitrate/compression that gives a picture indistinguishable from that provided by Sky, Freeview or Freesat for a BBC One broadcast. I'm not open to arguing on that, It's been tested.

Plus, again, downloads are possible for most. But you continue with your more laborious (and illegal) efforts if it makes you feel better.


Any discussion about Who's ratings must take into account all viewers, not just those who watch live or on the night. Before that can be agreed on, no sensible discussion can be had.

There will be plenty who will watch in the hope that England can pull off an unexpected win.

I think you're going to be wrong. I'm fed up with these 8pm kick offs but it's a vital game. As a Welshman, I like your prediction, mind. Think I'm included in the overnights anyway if I watch Who after the game...

Before 2am you would be (or, at least, you would be represented by people that will on the BARB panel).

But for ntscuser your crime will be not choosing to watch live.

Who the hell are you to say what can and cannot be discussed in a Dr ratings thread?


Or anything else it appears?

You're opinion is "fact" and anyone who disagrees with your opinion is "wrong".



Thank you I will and it's no more effort for me to download than it is for most people to watch a grossly inferior iPlayer version.


The overall ratings are also in decline. There is disagreement as to by how much or the exact cause but until you become a moderator of this thread members are free to discuss any aspect of that decline they choose.

Well, this will be about the 6th time since January 1982 so I'll let myself off.

You clearly don't understand anything about the viewing habits of most of the UK.
The rugby tommorow will get big ratings for sure as many people will want to watch the game. You may not. Fine.

And you've still not answered my earlier question - why is it so important to you that you feel people ought to watch Doctor Who on first transmission rather than do anything more important?

Just have to chime in here, if you know what you're doing (and it's not complicated) then yes it is both easier,or at the very least AS easy, and a better video quality than iPlayer.

But as for the whole thing about needing an excuse not to watch live, it's nonsense. Frankly if live watching was the only option, given the current standard of quality the past few years, I wouldn't even bother with the programme.

A poor attempt at deflection. The point wasn't about discussion, it was about you labelling people taking part in the discussion, as well a large number of viewers.


No. It's only actual facts where I note that your disagreement is wrong. There is a whole swathe of research on this..

For example - not so long ago the BBC commissioned research into iPlayer usage. Amongst other things it found that people (in blind trials) watching an iPlayer stream from the BBC, over an average bandwidth, were unable to determine which it was when compared to various standard TV services (Sky, Virgin, Freeview and Freesat) compared to results that would be obtained via random chance.

Indeed, when asked to decide which service was giving the better picture, as many plumped for the iPlayer stream as for the alternative. Though it was the case that a majority of the sample started with an assumption that iPlayer streaming is poorer in quality. That's not surprising. In earlier days that was the case, and biases formed early on can be tough to shift.


I just went to access Doctor Who, in HD, from my Sky box. It took 7 clicks and approximately as many seconds to start downloading. In the space of time it took to type that last sentence the box came up informing me it was available to start watching.

That's full HD, and a recording with the same bandwidth and size as my Sky+ recording of the broadcast.

If you insist your pointless accessing of an illegal copy is easier or faster, then I will find that literally unbelievable.


You're missing the point. I'm not willing to discuss whether the ratings are in decline with anyone who won't take into account all viewers.

And I'm not modding. I've said nothing about shutting down discussion, merely defined the terms by which I believe reasonable discussion can be had, and noted those things that may be open to discussion, but are resolutely not a matter of opinion.

Seriously - level the playing field on who counts as viewing (essentially - everyone who has viewed), and I'll happily discuss whether the ratings are declining with you.

You should limit yourself to only speaking authoritatively on things you actually know about then! I could get a better version than yours in three clicks or less.

I'm sure it will but I suspect not as many as last week and not as many as some people here seem to be expecting it will.


Such as washing the cat?

It's not important to me, just don't complain when they stop showing Dr Who on a Saturday night because not enough people were watching then to justify the timeslot.

I also believe it's a contributory factor to the overall decline in DW ratings, in this country at least. BBC America doesn't seem to have suffered this problem.

As noted in my previous post, my iPlayer copy is the same size, same bitrate as the broadcast copy, took seconds to access and even begin viewing, and is on my TV. No fileshare copy is going to be better than the the broadcast copy.

I'm certainly mystified as to how any torrented copy can be obtained faster. Especially on a whim, as I just did a few minutes ago.

Plus, whatever the actual bitrates and compression rates, it remains the case that in testing, based on average BB speeds (and mine, for the record, is somewhat below the average), people can't tell the difference. And that's even more important than whether or not there is one.

For clarity - I'm not talking about iPlayer quality on a non-TV device. For streaming at least (my iPlayer download on my tablet of TWF is, as far as I can tell, as good as the original broadcast copy on my Sky box).