On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It still would be better to have four TV streams that are BBC ONE HD, BBC > TWO HD, BBC THREE/CBBC HD, BBC FOUR/CBeebie HD which can get the full MPEG4 > capacity at the "simulcast" point and then revert to standard (720x576i) > mode for the rest of the time. > This would cost no more than providing the single HDTV channel (no extra > capacity) but would be easier to understand. > > That does assume that no two (or three) BBC channels would be showing HD > programming at the same time. Probably true at the minute, but not forever. >
But this is the proposal at the moment, to simulcast from one channel at once. Yes, some special software would be required to jump to the BBC nations > and regions, but nothing is impossible. > > I'm no expert, but I know that whilst nothing is impossible, when it comes > to set top boxes, things that appear to be possible, often aren't without a > huge amount of work. > Given that the cost of the bandwidth - the satellite transponders - is large (needs rockets to launch) and the costs of software changes smaller, I would go for the latter. What I am saying is that what should happen is: Sky "standard" boxes: no changes required as they cannot receive HD services. Sky "HD" boxes: 101 is BBC (London) One HD, 102 BBC Two (England) HD, 115 BBC three HD, 116 BBC FOUR HD, 614 CBeebies HD, 613 CBBC HD, 503 BBC News 24 HD, 504 BBC Parliament HD. If Sky will sort it, the HD boxes could switch the correct non-HD content to make 101 the correct region (from 17) at the opt-out times, and 102 the correct one (from 4). The BBC Freesat boxes are under BBC control and 101 could be BBC (your region) One HD and 102 BBC (your nation) Two HD. There's little sign of the Freeview HD service as DVB-T2 is currently vapourware http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051316 > What I do know is that changing a channel's configuration on the fly > isn't that easy and simple - in the world of interactive TV we'd love to > have the options to suddenly close down one of our video streams and replace > it with (say) 10 audio streams, just like that. But we don't. It requires > just a bit more thinking about and configuration. > Sky does the BBC and ITV regions by broadcasting many different EPGs structures. It's not a massive change to make the HD boxes do this kind of thing, but it is an ask. > And not least we have to think about the poor so and so who has to cross > reference all the schedules to ensure that BBC One and BBC Two haven't both > put out HD programmes at the same time ;) > With the HD channel, that is the plan at the moment. In the future it would be a simple matter of having an extra transponder or two. > > That's my point. There is no point investing in a new brand of "the BBC > HD channel" which is a simulcast service if it is to be dropped eventually. > > Ah well, I suspect people are in agreement there - the amount of promotion > the BBC HD brand has had since it launched has been almost minimal. > It's actually none, isn't it? There's LOADS of space on the Eurobird 1 & Astra 2A/2B/2C/2D > <http://www.lyngsat.com/28east.html>satellites, and as I say, I propose > that the BBC services are in SD when they are not in HD mode, requiring > little bandwidth. > > Almost all of the BBC's content is on Astra 2D because it's beam is > focussed on the UK, thus allowing programmes to be broadcast without the > encryption which would be required otherwise due to rights issues. ITV > similarly use this same satellite for the same reasons. > But it's not a requirement for BBC services to be on Astra 2D. BBC News 24 and the radio channels have just moved to Astra 2A. > To use Astra 2A/B/C/Eurobird 1 (which have a pan-European footprint) would > therefore require encryption (we could debate this individual point til the > cows come home, but I won't because frankly it wouldn't change anything - > the BBC and ITV went in the clear by moving to Astra 2D in the first place, > and any move back to 2A/B/C would either be costly or require encryption). > Encryption is, by its very nature, not feasible with Freesat, so > any broadcasting a Freesat service would either need pan-European rights for > all their content (or at very least, not have content where it matters!) or > be on Astra 2D. > No encryption is required under the *EU* Council *Directive* (89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989) > So there's a lot of potential demand on 2D. And at some point, it will > fill up. > > As I just pointed out, it doesn't really matter. Other satellites are available... -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
