I guess thye have to start somewhere - and can you imagine how many people would have complained if they had decided to stop after the trial period had ended. I'd rather watch some BBC live sport and some BBC drama in HD than none.
I agree it is less than a perfect service - but the funding is less than perfect as well.
The trial period promised so much, the content was better, the bitrate was better. Programs were aired at the same time as they were shown on BBC 1, we had HD football and many new programs. Now we have repeats and more repeats and they can't be bothered to show HD programs that they have in the bank. What happened to Rome? etc etc. If you're happy with the four hours of repeats, then that's fine with me. Not everybody is though, especially those who have been watching for the past two years. Initially, BBC HD set the standard, it certainly doesn't now. I would have complained if the service had been cancelled after the trial, but then I and I'm sure many others, were expecting much more than we're getting from the channel currently.
Well don't forget there was a colour licence fee that paid for the switch to colour. There has been no equivalent HD licence fee - or even a digital licence fee...
So why get involved if funding isn't available to make a 'proper' job of it? The BBC have led the way in the past, but if they can't now afford to do that now with HD, why go off 'half cocked'? They'd be better spending what income they have to get the rest of the service up to scratch.
But is every other broadcaster that does it in HD a non-commercial, publically funded one that can't accept programme sponsorship?
And until recently even US Golf has been only partially in HD - and some of it is still in SD...
I very much suspect that if it were zero cost to the BBC to do it, and they were able to within their current contracts, they would.
My understanding is that it is likely to be covered in HD next year... Does that mean the BBC should close the BBC HD service for a year?
The BBC don't make money from selling sports coverage to other broadcasters - that is the province of the sports rights holders... The BBC don't sell the coverage - the rights holders do. The BBC are just contracted to provide the host broadcast coverage by the rights holders.
So are you saying the BBC provide the coverage for nothing? Do you think the rights holders specified an SD only feed for The Open? Let's not forget the other three Major golf tournaments, are they in SD? No they're not! AFAIK the BBC isn't
just publicly funded they are involved in
many business activities, or do they give all the profits from DVD rights and program sales directly back to the Treasury?
Yes - and because ITV, Channel Four (and now Five) decided not to bid for it.
So then does the fact that the BBC got one of the world's premier sporting events by default, as you suggest, give them carte blanche to give us an inferior presentation? I hardly think so. What would you say if they decided not to take an HD feed of The Olympics? It would save money if they didn't, more people take part in golf then ever track and field sports, never mind all the other minority sports that comprise The Olympics. But the BBC are going to cover it in HD, when they couldn't show England in HD tonight. Last Saturday I watched Bristol City v Hull City in HD from the same stadium. Neither teams have the same status as our National Team surely?
As was stated in the original Public Value Test submissions - the amount of HD content is likely to increase year on year. The non-trial service has only been running for 6 months after all...
Yes and instead of getting better, it's got worse! Was that a pre-requisite part of the Public Value Test submissions?
Yep - if you are happy to spend nearly £800/year on subscription TV that is your right. However to expect the BBC to deliver similar levels of HD sport and other content at £150/year is asking quite a lot - particularly when the BBC licence fee funds more original production than any other TV or Radio service in the UK - and a lot more HD than any of the other terrestrials.
I am happy to spend £800 a year for my TV entertainment, it's excellent value for money. If as you say, that the BBC can't afford to do the HD service justice, then I'd be happier if they spent my TV license fee in a better way.
But then again - Sky's not doing much HD interactive yet are they?
They've done HD football matches via the interactive service, but with three HD sports channels, there's not a great need to do it anymore.
Yep - my comparison with BBC HD is with ITV, C4 and Five - the other terrestrials. I'd rather have BBC HD than not. It could be better, and no doubt will continue to improve as more and more shows are commissioned in HD.
Don't forget that it took a while for BBC HD to be approved as a full service. Until it was approved no shows could be commissioned in HD for BBC HD only (just the HD co-pros could be made in HD) - the HD trial was extended to cover the gap between the end of the formal trial and the decision about the launch of the approved service. Given that many shows run on a 6-12 month commissioning period - there is a commissioning gap currently - particularly in documentary, but also in drama. Hopefully now that BBC HD is up and running they will be able to commission more HD shows over the next 12 months.
Nothing in broadcasting is instant - particularly when discussing long-term commissions, or long-term rights contracts. (Wimbledon was 4:3 long after most other events were 16:9 because the multi-year rights contract was for 4:3 coverage...)
Some of the co-pros haven't even come to air yet, why not? They're paid for and done and dusted! We had Rome series 1 in HD, Series 2 was also made in HD and it's yet to see the light of day. As for 4:3, my local news has only just gone 16:9 recently, I would have sooner had that dealt with two years ago if I'd known the HD channel was going to be four hours of repeats a day.
As for the 5.1/2.0 issues - this is exactly the same as at least one US network... Far from ideal I know.
Far from ideal? It's apalling, it doesn't happen on
any of the Sky channels so there is no excuse for the BBC to take so long to sort this issue out. IMHO the US network situation has no relevence here, that's not a valid excuse. Sky One HD in particular switches seamlessly between audio formats, if they can get it right there's no reason why the BBC shouldn't either.
Yep - I agree that was a really poor fowl-up of the highest order. Very poor that it happened, that it took so long to sort, and that no apology was made. (though I suspect that the tiny audience figures for HD channels meant that the production team didn't feel that the disruption to the 90%+ SD audience was warranted - and BBC HD doesn't have live continuity, so the best they could have done was a caption - if that)
I'd have been happy with a caption, but we didn't get one did we? The way they dealt with the situation was very poor indeed, not what you'd expect from the BBC.
I'm not saying the BBC is perfect - far from it. What I am saying is that I'd rather have the current BBC HD service than not have it. Sure we'd all like more HD content on it - and we're all impatient to have as many of the shows and events we like covered in HD. However to expect everything to happen in such a short timescale is just not realistic.
It is right to ask whether the Beeb should be doing HD at all given the current licence fee settlement - but given that the Beeb are making stuff in HD for co-production reasons anyway it is probably justified running an HD service to make these shows available to the people who paid for them until more domestically funded HD production becomes financially feasible.
I'm not expecting a mirror image of the whole output of the BBC in HD, nor do I expect an unrealistic timescale, on the contrary. However, I do expect the BBC HD channel to be better than four hours of daily repeats. It isn't and as such I do question whether the BBC would have been better to wait until they had a better HD service to offer. The trial led us to expect great things and rightly so, but the reality of the channel is very poor indeed IMHO. One of my 'beefs' is that they are not making these HD co-production shows you refer to available on BBC HD, I helped pay for them too!
ATB
Max