1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

BBC HD Update

Discussion in 'Televisions' started by scarty16, Oct 11, 2005.

  1. scarty16

    scarty16
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,000
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +73
    From speech today by Mark Thompson

    The BBC is also keen to invest in high definition television (HDTV), which offers clear, lifelike pictures and sound on large-screen televisions. Sky is planning to launch its own HDTV service next year.

    Mr Thompson pledged to deliver free-to-air HDTV on all BBC digital platforms "as soon as practical", which is expected to be by about 2010.
     
  2. richard plumb

    richard plumb
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,282
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Windsor
    Ratings:
    +1,017
    as soon as is practical for Satellite and internet download (eg imp) would be next year. No need to roll them all out simulatneously.
     
  3. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,080
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +681
    I suspect this means that things like a swift move to HD, along with the proposed move of Sport and Kids to Manchester, rely on the BBC getting something near their proposed RPI+2.3% licence fee formula.

    I think the current proposals include spending around £700m on digital infrastructure stuff - which includes upgrading to HD.

    I agree with the previous poster that 2010 and "as soon as is practical" don't mean the same thing.

    Given that the BBC iMP trial already includes HD content I suspect we'll see satellite and broadband HD (possibly cable) well before we see it via digital OTA.
     
  4. nigelbb

    nigelbb
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,230
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +479
    Unless they use MPEG4 & thus a whole new generation of Freeview boxes they will have to wait until analogue switch off in 2012 before there is enough bandwidth for HDTV in MPEG2 in Freeview.
     
  5. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    You are assuming that the bandwidth liberated by terrestrial TV would be made available to digital TV, and the government has never indicated that this would be the case. In previous TV band closures (Bands 1 & 3) the government has sold off the bandwidth to the highest bidder, and (given the government's haste to close down terrestrial) I suspect that this will be the case again. There's a lot of wealthy mobile phone companies waiting with cheque books at the ready.
     
  6. tim k

    tim k
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    am i right in thinking that with IMP you dont need a regular tv license?

    im thinking a mighty loophole here.
     
  7. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979



    The BBC are experts at closing loopholes:)

    No doubt the license will soon include PC and Internet systems to cover those who don't have a traditional tuning facilites just as it did when satellite became popular even though there were little or no BBC UK services on the platform:)
     
  8. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,080
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +681
    Not sure how this is being addressed during the trial - but I would be VERY surprised if a licence wasn't required for the full version when it is rolled out. I suspect the Beeb will lobby for the legislation to be altered to include watchign pre-recorded broadcast TV on a PC...
     
  9. paolo999

    paolo999
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, obviously for something like the iMP they can have a registration process which will gather the same kind of data that is gathered in the current scenario (i.e. new TV sales) to produce a cross-check DB for the enforcement people.

    But for non iMP sources of UK broadcast TV - of which there are plenty - then you've got to got to visit homes without a TV license, get access to the PC and find the programmes - not simply point at a box and say "it's got a tuner, you're nicked."

    It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

    I guess the mitigating factor here is that whilst you can get pretty much all recently broadcast drama as downloads, there is no realtime facility via the "uncontrolled" sources, and so very few households will fully dispense with a tuner even if they are watching alot of TV (as I do) using their PC.

    So it's a loophole that might have little impact for the foreseeable.
     
  10. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    17,605
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +4,524
    Or maybe it'll be a case of, "If you can access the Internet on your PC, you'll need a licence to view the BBC website. It doesn't matter if you visit the website."
     
  11. Rasczak

    Rasczak
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    21,146
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Argyll
    Ratings:
    +2,211
    Which seems perfectly reasonable IMHO. I would have no serious objection to TV licencing being extended to cover PC ownership. It seems the logical step.
     
  12. wyrdness

    wyrdness
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Messages:
    278
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16
    Does it? I don't own or watch TV. The BBC are talking about increasing the license fee to almost £200. Why the f*** should I be forced to pay £200 for a service that I don't want or use?
     
  13. GreasyWeasel

    GreasyWeasel
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    352
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Ratings:
    +13
    I think you'd find a lot of resistance to that. Especially from companies who have large numbers of pc's who wouldn't be too pleased about having to pay license fees.
     
  14. neilmcl

    neilmcl
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    6,216
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +290
    No offence but if you don't watch or own a TV then why are you on these forums.
     
  15. rogeralpine

    rogeralpine
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    565
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    ...there's plenty to watch on a TV screen without relying on the beeb!

    The news of the proposed increase in the licence fee certainly got a few at work talking and the general widespread opinion was that if we could do without the beeb, we all would as we hardly watch anything it produces anyway. I would be more than happy to buy on DVD programs it produces that interest me - I'm not happy about the "forced" licence fee, I would like the choice!

    I'm not saying that other broadcasters don't splash the cash, but if the reports are true, then there appears to be a substantial amount of "wastage" at the Beeb on things like taxis and trips to the States to cover the election. If I had a choice about paying for that then fine, but I don't - that's the annoying factor. Give me Sky or NTL TV access without the Beeb to save me the licence fee any day!
     
  16. richard plumb

    richard plumb
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,282
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Windsor
    Ratings:
    +1,017
    £150 after 8 years is almost £200? :rotfl:



    And I don't think anyone was suggesting simply charging you £150 a year to own a PC - just if you access the service. Most likely you'll just have to tie your license number with your PC somehow.
     
  17. neilmcl

    neilmcl
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    6,216
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +290
    Read the OP post, he said he doesn't own or even watch TV not that he doesn't watch the BBC.
     
  18. neilmcl

    neilmcl
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    6,216
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +290
    As far as PC usage is concerned there were talks of the BBC developing theire own browser software and google type search engine, not sure of the full details but apparently some of the license fee would be used to develop this and possibly it's usage. Like Richard said I don't think anyone was seriously saying that you would have to pay the fee just for simply owning a PC.
     
  19. Rasczak

    Rasczak
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    21,146
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Argyll
    Ratings:
    +2,211
    But without the licence fee these programmes would never get made in the first place. ITV is the classic example of this - look how far programming from that channel is toned down to ensure it appeals to a wide audience at home and abroad. By contrast the BBC judges the success of it's programming on ratings coupled with audience appreciation - a unique position because of the licence fee. It's all very well for you to say "you'll buy what you want" - but without the licence fee they simply wouldn't be made.

    There is "wastage" like that in any large organisation - it's a fact of life. Large organisations employ people from all over the country. These people need to travel and costs need to incurred. If you think the BBC is bad look at the military!

    Ok - but as Sky buys a substantial amount of programming with the BBC (on a Sky shows first, then the BBC) the licence fee partly pays for Sky TV viewers - some you would still need to pay that part of the licence. In addition UKTV satellite channels have direct access to the BBC archive - including programmes that have only just been aired on one of the main BBC channels - so you can also contribute to that part of the licence fee. And, if the licence fee was scrapped, there would soon be a call to create more UK programming and therefore you would find you would probably end up paying a substantial amount extra on your subscription to fund the quotas that would be assigned to Sky.

    You must have a fairly non-standard workforce then! If you look at the ratings figures the BBC achieves it produces some of the most popular programming on TV: Eastenders, Casualty, Doctor Who plus countless short dramas such as Charles II, Cambridge Spies etc - these have all been massive ratings winners. Likewise look at the favourite channel polls on this forum - the BBC always comes out top (when you conbine BBC1/BBC2 polls together). If the BBC was failing in the ratings then there would need to be questions raised about how to make it more mainstream - however that is simply not the case!

    When you look at what the BBC provides - extensive and varied UK programming, unrivaled news coverage, over 8 TV channels, dozens of radio channels and one of the best websites on the internet - I think most people agree it is worth the licence fee and more!
     
  20. wyrdness

    wyrdness
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Messages:
    278
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16
    Good question. I own a DVD player and a projector. I'm currently thinking of upgrading the projector to one of the newly announced HD-ready models from Sanyo (Z4) or Panasonic (AE-900), which is why I subscribed to these forums.
    I also work for a certain TV company.
     
  21. neilmcl

    neilmcl
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    6,216
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +290
    Are you currently paying the License Fee then? I know this has been debated before but I'm pretty sure if you haven't got equipment in use actively recieving a TV signal then you have a case for not paying it anyway.
     
  22. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    Is it a TV company that hates BBC? ;)

    StooMonster
     
  23. rogeralpine

    rogeralpine
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    565
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0

    ...yes, but you weren't referring the the OP's post but wyrdness's post. There's plenty of reasons to be a member here and not watch TV - as in the Beeb.
     
  24. rogeralpine

    rogeralpine
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    565
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0

    I certainly don't disagree - but I think in recent years the quality and standard of programs coming out of the Beeb has declined somewhat - all IMHO of course and if you enjoy their services that's fine by me - they just don't offer anything I'm interested in to warrant £200 or more of my money.


    I'm fully aware other companies are wasteful and I half-mentioned that in my orginal post.

    ....fair point - which I was not aware of tbh. I'd certainly like to know which shows are jointly purchased by Sky and the Beeb - any links to the info?

    Eastenders - do me a favour - male 30's + certainly in our office hate that drivel. There has been plenty of comments about the material the Beeb produces and I've seen many articles about "failing" ratings as well. In any case, neither I nor my work colleagues are interested in ratings as everyone is entitled to rate the service for themselves - for the majority of the population they may be rated highly but I and my work colleagues (not all may I add) do not and surely we're entitled to our opinion on that?

    All down to personal taste - I'm not knocking those that love the service and are happy to pay for it but for me I do not think it's worth £200+ and therefore would prefer the option to opt out if I could.
     
  25. rogeralpine

    rogeralpine
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    565
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0

    ....IMHO that's complete nonsense - if the Beeb want to cover all their bases and not lose out on what they see as potential income streams, they should introduce an account login method to restrict people who want to gain access to their web services to those that already have a licence. There's no way PC ownership and consequential internet access should result in someone having to pay a licence fee - that's completely illogical.

    If you were referring to those PC's with TV tuner cards fair enough - but again you're dealing with no choice as opposed to a chioce which isn't fair IMO. You may think it's excellent value - that's your decision, not everyone elses!
     
  26. neilmcl

    neilmcl
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    6,216
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +290
    Of course I was referring to Wyrdness's post, he stated that he didn't even own or watch ANY TV, regardless of the beeb or not. So why did you feel the need to correct me?
     
  27. Croker

    Croker
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    862
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Liverpool
    Ratings:
    +54
    A note on the BBC's proposal of raising the licence fee - it's an atrocious proposal. The BBC is no longer the bastion of great programming that many would have us believe.

    I'm not opposed to the licence fee per se, but let's face facts - still far too much of the BBC's money is being wasted on garbage. Think of some of the "Saturday Night Extravaganza!"-type shows they've put on of late. "Saturday Swings", with Natasha Kaplinsky. A bomb. "He's Having A Baby" - another bomb, and a bloody expensive one as well. At least "Saturday Swings" was a one-off. BBC3 is rammed to the gills with repeats of "2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps" - absolutely woeful. BBC4 sometimes shows interesting shows, but all too often is dragged into far too much minority tat - "Arthur Negus Appreciates...Faberge Eggs" (not a true example, but you know the kind of show I mean).

    What about the lottery shows? That "JetSet" costs a bloody fortune to run, and Dale's "In It To Win It" (in what? I dare not ask!) doesn't come cheap either. Why can't they just come on, and say "here are the numbers", and then go off again? Simple, effective and cheap. There are repeats galore. The film selection, outside of holiday periods, is usually pretty poor on a week-to-week basis - dodgy b-movies starring Corbin Bernsen, et al.

    When they show they can regularly spend the money wisely, then I'd support an increase. Until then - absolutely not!
     
  28. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,080
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +681
    If you are registered at Media Guardian (it's free) then the following article is an interesting read.

    http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,7493,1590876,00.html

    It is written by Gavyn Davies (if I'm not mistaken he was the Chair of the Governors who resigned over Hutton) and makes some calculations that you don't often see made. He has obviously worked for the BBC, so some will see this as bias, but you seldom get people costing how much ITV/C4/Five and the other commercial channels cost us as consumers in advertising that we pay for when we purchase products.

    A bit I found particularly interesting was :

    "Look at it this way. The cost of the BBC is 23% of the total cost of all television services transmitted in the UK. Yet BBC television wins 37% of the total television audience. So the consumer is paying much less per hour for the BBC than for other types of television. True, this includes advertising in the overall cost of commercial telly. Since advertising appears "free" to the consumer, perhaps it should be excluded. But I think not. Advertising absorbs people's time when they would rather be watching programmes and raises business expenses that are then passed on to consumers in higher prices. Nothing is "free", least of all advertising.

    But even if we look only at subscription charges, the BBC offers good value. For each 1% of audience share it wins, the BBC costs £62m a year. Subscription services, mostly dispensed by the Sky platform, cost viewers £156m per point of audience share - far more expensive than the BBC.
    "

    Obviously the second par (as Davies admits) is slightly apples and oranges - as subscription is optional, and the licence-fee isn't, but it is still an interesting point in "value" terms.
     
  29. rogeralpine

    rogeralpine
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    565
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0

    ...sorry - my post didn't come across as it was intended. I was merely expressing an opinion that even if you don't own or watch a TV, then there are still plenty of reasons to be a member on here. I interpreted his response along the lines he does watch films etc.. but not TV - I agree if someone on here doesn't watch "TV" (meaning all video experiences) then yes, what are they doing here.
     
  30. Rasczak

    Rasczak
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    21,146
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Argyll
    Ratings:
    +2,211
    Cheers for the link to that article Stephen - it certainly puts the 'cost' of the BBC into perspective. By commercial necessity we all buy products that feature on TV whether we subscribe to that channel or not. It really isn't that much different from paying for a licence fee. The difference though is we get a better TV product via the licence fee.

    That is highly subjective - the BBC makes some fantastic programming. And in recent years the production standards of their flagship dramas has gone through the roof - compare 'By The Sword Divided' with 'Charles II: Power & The Passion'. Compare 'Doctor Who 2005' with 'Doctor Who 1985'.

    ...because alot of people want more.

    No there isn't. A vast number of shows don't ever get repeated on BBC1 or BBC2. You either have to buy the DVDs or watch BBC3 and BBC4. Frankly though I'm all for repeats being on these channels - and indeed on the internet - to enable people to watch the programming of their choice.

    There is very little to be gained from the BBC spending all it's money on acquiring the rights to films so it can show them several weeks before Sky. People don't expect the very latest movies on terrestial TV - those that do will pay £20 extra per month to Sky.
     

Share This Page

Loading...