why no ITV digital replacemenT?
Discussion
Last time I owned an apartment there was a no satellite dish clause. No cable in the area meant that ITV digital was a saviour for all sky sports fans. ITV digital folds and I had moved to a house so went with the usual dish for a while but now moving back to an apartment. Once again, no cable, no dishes allowed so no Sky sports. I am amazed that this massive gap in the market hasn't been filled by a product such as ITV digital and assume its Sky's greed that has prevented this?
You're right - the choice on Freeview is pretty shite. What I can't understand is that, given that there is a limit to the number of channels they can broadcast, why is there like 3 or 4 channels selling tat/doing stupid quizzes/auctioning tat? There's QVC, price-drop tv, bid up tv and rubbish like that.
Who chose which channels to give the broadcast rights to? Why the
have they obviously got "an eye for a bargin" and a penchant for yellow metal?
Who chose which channels to give the broadcast rights to? Why the
have they obviously got "an eye for a bargin" and a penchant for yellow metal?chim_knee said:
You're right - the choice on Freeview is pretty shite. What I can't understand is that, given that there is a limit to the number of channels they can broadcast, why is there like 3 or 4 channels selling tat/doing stupid quizzes/auctioning tat? There's QVC, price-drop tv, bid up tv and rubbish like that.
Who chose which channels to give the broadcast rights to? Why thehave they obviously got "an eye for a bargin" and a penchant for yellow metal?
Simple. Cash. The tat channels make money by selling...well...tat! They pay for their slot from their profits. All the others have to fund their service through their ads. So the implication here is that chavs have funded the tat channels at the expense of the "nromal" stuff. But I could be wrong.
Now I can't find a link but I'm pretty sure I didn't dream it, if it's a no dish policey, and not 'no sky' there are companies that make disguised arials, I can find one painted green and stuck in a bush, and another pretending to be a sun dial, but I'm sure I've seen some that look like plant pots that you can just put on a balconey, got to be worth a look, can't imagine going back to 5 channels. 
raceboy said:
Now I can't find a link but I'm pretty sure I didn't dream it, if it's a no dish policey, and not 'no sky' there are companies that make disguised arials, I can find one painted green and stuck in a bush, and another pretending to be a sun dial, but I'm sure I've seen some that look like plant pots that you can just put on a balconey, got to be worth a look, can't imagine going back to 5 channels.
ooooh, sounds interesting. Do they do one that looks like a spare engine or a pile of empty beer cans so that it goes unnoticed at my place?
would be interested in this
shnozz said:
Last time I owned an apartment there was a no satellite dish clause. No cable in the area meant that ITV digital was a saviour for all sky sports fans. ITV digital folds and I had moved to a house so went with the usual dish for a while but now moving back to an apartment. Once again, no cable, no dishes allowed so no Sky sports. I am amazed that this massive gap in the market hasn't been filled by a product such as ITV digital and assume its Sky's greed that has prevented this?
Looks like you're right - topup tv don't carry sky sports, either. Maybe look into the broadband, as ATG suggests?
TeamD said:
You're right - the choice on Freeview is pretty shite. What I can't understand is that, given that there is a limit to the number of channels they can broadcast, why is there like 3 or 4 channels selling tat/doing stupid quizzes/auctioning tat? There's QVC, price-drop tv, bid up tv and rubbish like that.
Who chose which channels to give the broadcast rights to? Why the
Simple. Cash. The tat channels make money by selling...well...tat! They pay for their slot from their profits. All the others have to fund their service through their ads. So the implication here is that chavs have funded the tat channels at the expense of the "nromal" stuff. But I could be wrong.
Plus also, tat channels like that don't actually require very much bandwitdth to be broadcast at decent quality (unlike sports and movie channels) so more can be fitted into existing (limited) bandwith. More always looks "better" on paper...
Additionally, tat channels don't even need to be broadcast at 'decent' quality, so they can up the compression a bit and squeeze a few more in again.
pdV6 said:Sadly, it all makes sense now! I assumed it was going to be financially driven but didn't realise that broadcast quality too.
You're right - the choice on Freeview is pretty shite. What I can't understand is that, given that there is a limit to the number of channels they can broadcast, why is there like 3 or 4 channels selling tat/doing stupid quizzes/auctioning tat? There's QVC, price-drop tv, bid up tv and rubbish like that.
Who chose which channels to give the broadcast rights to? Why the
Simple. Cash. The tat channels make money by selling...well...tat! They pay for their slot from their profits. All the others have to fund their service through their ads. So the implication here is that chavs have funded the tat channels at the expense of the "nromal" stuff. But I could be wrong.
Plus also, tat channels like that don't actually require very much bandwitdth to be broadcast at decent quality (unlike sports and movie channels) so more can be fitted into existing (limited) bandwith. More always looks "better" on paper...
Additionally, tat channels don't even need to be broadcast at 'decent' quality, so they can up the compression a bit and squeeze a few more in again.
Indeed. Anything that consists of mostly "static" shots, i.e. newsreaders sitting behind desks, QVC products on display etc. compress very well. Rapidly changing scenes (e.g. action films, sports etc) don't compress so well without a large drop in quality.
{edited to add:} As a rough comparison, 2 full-quality digital film channels will fit into the same bandwidth as an old analogue channel. That same badwidth can be used for, say, 8 or so news channels if you don't mind the quality suffering a little.
>> Edited by pdV6 on Friday 24th February 11:30
{edited to add:} As a rough comparison, 2 full-quality digital film channels will fit into the same bandwidth as an old analogue channel. That same badwidth can be used for, say, 8 or so news channels if you don't mind the quality suffering a little.
>> Edited by pdV6 on Friday 24th February 11:30
pdV6 said:Interesting. I was aware(ish) that MPEG compresses by only storing changes between frames (is that right?). Is this the same thing?
Indeed. Anything that consists of mostly "static" shots, i.e. newsreaders sitting behind desks, QVC products on display etc. compress very well. Rapidly changing scenes (e.g. action films, sports etc) don't compress so well without a large drop in quality.
{edited to add:} As a rough comparison, 2 full-quality digital film channels will fit into the same bandwidth as an old analogue channel. That same badwidth can be used for, say, 8 or so news channels if you don't mind the quality suffering a little.
>> Edited by pdV6 on Friday 24th February 11:30
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff