Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic (Post 35346033)

I think you are reading too much in to <small tidbit of TV-related news>

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle (Post 35345998)

Again with the BBC and the licence fee! :(

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle (Post 35345981)

Alternatively, the tail could wag the dog and we might be stuck with SD until the majority of people have upgraded and that could take years.

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic (Post 35346167)

Bless him https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/12/28.gif

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35346168)

the devil's in the details or something.

Originally Posted by Lew (Post 35346164)

Of course, the 2 channels could quite easily be 554 and 555, couldn't they? ;)

Originally Posted by HD Boy (Post 35346171)

Well spiderplant did say
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35...-post6437.html

It is only a matter of when that happens. So Live Events will be on channel 0 on Tivo like the Virgin Media legacy boxes.

Originally Posted by HD Boy (Post 35346171)

Well spiderplant did say
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35...-post6437.html

It is only a matter of when that happens. So Live Events will be on channel 0 on Tivo like the Virgin Media legacy boxes.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35346177)

My Insider has confirm that.

It will happen eventually - but not right now.

Originally Posted by HDFootyMan (Post 35346120)

A typical HD channel takes up around x4 the bandwidth of a SD channnel. Even if you closed all the SD channels, its doubtful there would be enough bandwidth for a HD version of every SD channel - unless you start reducing the bitrate of those HD channels (in which case they become HD-lite).

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle (Post 35346126)

I can't see a merger of Three and Four as they are polar opposites. More likely marriages would be One with Three and Two with Four. I also find it hard to believe that there is any BBC Three content that is suitable for broadcast in the afternoon slots of BBC One and BBC Two to fill the void left by the reduction in original and imported daytime programming on those channels as has been suggested.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35346151)

I think we will ever know how Virgin works out their EPG Channels.

Originally Posted by HDFootyMan (Post 35346157)

Besides, do we really NEED everything featuring Katie Price in HD? Please, think of the children. And the wasted bandwidth. :)

Originally Posted by devilincarnate (Post 35346169)

No I'am not:D

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35346194)

Damn, accidental pun... ;)

Originally Posted by HD Boy (Post 35346171)

Well spiderplant did say
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35...-post6437.html

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle (Post 35345998)

Again with the BBC and the licence fee! :(

I knew what you meant, Alan: better content on the channels that we already have and more channels on VM that are already available from other providers.

I agree that it's odd that the government are proposing these local channels at a time when the mainstream UK channels are struggling and local newspapers and radio stations are going under. We have Mix 96 as our local radio station in Aylesbury but the counterpart in High Wycombe, owned by the same group and formerly broadcasting on two frequencies, went under a few years back having made a loss year after year due to lack of advertising revenue.

Maybe it was because High Wycombe is in the catchment area of other stations that don't reach Aylesbury but it seemed odd that a major town like that couldn't support a local radio station but a town like Luton is expected to support a TV channel. If we are to have local channels they should be capable of operating self-sufficiently or perhaps with a small public service grant but not as satellites (non-orbiting :rolleyes:) of the BBC with their civil service mentality and employment terms. The BBC already has regional TV and radio to look after they don't need more responsibility or more funding.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35346152)

According to DS, three channels started today, but didn't state what channels are closing on January 1st and there is two of them.

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle (Post 35346076)

The BBC iPlayer is currently available on a variety of platforms including TVs, computers, smartphones, tablets and games consoles. A TV licence is not required to use the iPlayer to watch programmes which have already been broadcast but the 'Watch Live' simulcast service does require one. However, development of the iPlayer was funded by the licence fee and was criticised for taking years of development before producing a viable product.

Nobody said that BBC local radio stations were in jeopardy but they might be if funding was diverted to local BBC TV stations instead. It might be nice to have local TV services covering local news and events in better times but it is just the wrong time to be doing it. If the idea fails then nobody will try it again for decades because it will be marred by having failed without taking into consideration the economic environment of the time. I don't believe that we should be trying to do this for a few years and I can only cynically suggest that it is proposed as a money earner for the government through licensing and for the BBC and Arqiva through leasing of studio and broadcast facilities and the all important EPG slots and Freeview multiplexes.

The current licence fee subsidised the digital switch-over so it should be sufficient to fund public service broadcasting at its current level and even cover future innovation especially if cost savings are realised within the BBC.

Whilst it would be a shame to see services like BBC World Service (radio)* and BBC World News (TV)* go or reduce their broadcasting hours, this is what the majority of former colonial powers and propaganda merchants have been doing in favour of website content and internet streaming of radio and TV programmes. The Irish national broadcaster RTÉ was due to launch an international service this/next year which VM were expected to carry but have shelved it in favour of expanding their website and on-line player functionality. Radio Netherlands and countless others are restricting their overseas services, especially on short-wave radio, as there is no longer a need to provide these services for ex-patriots with the advent of other delivery mechanisms. The 'colonies' are not as cut off from the world as they used to be!

*BBC World Service (radio) is currently funded by the British Government through a grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but, from 2014, it will be funded by the BBC licence fee. This may be an indication that the FCO no longer feel the need for such a service for the reasons stated above and I feel it is unfair that the domestic licence fee-payers should be funding a service for non-fee-payers abroad.

*BBC World News (TV) is a commercially operated service funded by advertising and competing against other news channels, principally CNN. It has the largest audience of any BBC channel.

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle (Post 35346105)

So we should fund the BBC both through the licence fee and through other forms of direct or indirect taxation? :td:

There are far more appropriate ways that the BBC can manage to operate within their current budget without affecting quality. It is also very important that the BBC's funding should be easily identifiable rather than being hidden in back door government funding from the tax-payer. If anything, the BBC needs to become more autonomous and more business-like and less like a state owned broadcaster.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35346113)

I beg to differ!

Apart from the 3 new channels today, there has only been 2 other genuine new channels this year, PBS and True Entertainment which have launched on cable.

The rest are +1s or HD versions of existing channels. And some channels like Yesterday+1 and Eden+1 are only relaunches as their predecessor channels used to be on cable before they were removed (UK History+1 and UK Docs+1 removed in 2008.)

Plus Vm has removed several channels over the last few years, many because of the VMtv sale to Sky. If VM bring back channels such as MTV Classic, More 4 +1, History +1, Animal Planet +1 that were removed plus add channels that should've been on the platform ages ago ie, History HD. Then add more recent channels such as the rest of the CBS ones, Universal HD, ITV's HDs etc, then it is adding choice.

But at the moment, I don't see how removing some channels with one hand and adding others with another is adding to choice. It's just keeping things level.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35346212)

I also think that removing Current TV would be a bad idea