Talk:Freeview (UK)

message: I have now added YOOPLAY GAMES to this category; the space has been leased to SMG plc to launch Virgin Radio. I have also mentioned on the EPG that YooPlay Games is no longer active (the placeholder is still present however).
I also propose that the "Channels Removed or Replaced" section to be renamed "Former Channels", as it sounds a bit shoddy as it is. Marbles333 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channels Removed/Replaced 

message: Today my Freeview box had just found a new channel called tvtv DIGITAL on channel 304. Has anyone else found this channel or knows anything about it. As I wonder what it is, and it also says it's a text channel. Thanks.    LONDON UK    • 13:44, 02 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My box has picked it up. I know nothing about the channel, but I would guess that it has something to do with the following link . RobWill80 13:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tvtv DIGITAL 

message: I added a sentence to point out that currently less than three-quarters of the population can actually receive it, and that's according to Freeview's own rather optimistic forecast. (Reception where I live is good according to their website. In fact it's virtually unwatchable unless I fork out for a very big aerial.)--Shantavira 13:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Availability

message: Looking on Digital Spy and found this. London UK  (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freeview's website says it will be changing it's looks "in the next few days" --h2g2bob 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new logo has appeared, and User:UTV2 had uploaded it with the incorrect tags and it now stands for deletion. I have added the correct tags (I think), and it seems to be from the Freeview website, see here Marbles333 11:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has got the correct tags and is on the Freeview website then it is okay to add it to the article. London UK  (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Look Freeview 

message: Could the date of channels being added be included (as well as the existing "dates of departures")? Jackiespeel 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, I think that this would be a useful addition. Chris as I am Chris 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New entrant channels

message: Should BBC TWO's caption be changed so that it states it has National variations on Freeview, as opposed to reigional on analogue? Chris as I am Chris 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC TWO Nation variations, not Reigional 

message: This article does a poor job of distinguishing the Freeview company from the Freeview service (which includes channels not supplied by Freeview) and the DVB-T platform itself. It needs a lot work in this regard. --88.109.230.172 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service vs Platform 

message: Just to clarify things: There is no "copied Freeview model" in Germany. Almost all German TV stations have always broadcasted free-to-air on their own, this includes the public channels as well as, since around 1985, the commercial ones. For terrestrial transmission, the station rents broadcasting services from a transmitter operator and that's it. This has been the case for analogue broadcasting and is the case for digital broadcasting.
Specifically, there's no joint company that markets DVB-T services and owns a broadcasting license. A number of more or less state-owned PR companies have been setup to help get things started on the viewer's side, but they don't broadcast.
--87.193.10.216 10:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeview (not) in Germany 

message: I'm not wasting any more time on this article. Firstly it is plain OBVIOUS that the Freeview brand is used for non-consortium channels, such as QVC, Sit-up, Ideal World, ABC1 and so on, which USE THE FREEVIEW BRAND. There is NO citation for this, it is plain common sense. If you wish to ruin a good article with tags - go ahead. I removed the information about the Genericised Trademark as that is not proved, but the rest is just plain obvious - there is NO reference available which can say so, we know it is and its just plain common sense. There is no dispute, simply a misunderstanding. /Marbles 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some references.  ••Briantist•• talk 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong, wrong , wrong 

message: It might be worth including the current broadcast resolution of Freeview. I know it's MPEG2 over DVB-T but I feel it could be any one of: 480i, 480p, 576i or 576p (I think old low-resolution content is upscaled before transmission but I may be wrong). It might also vary by channel. If anyone has this info, it would seem prudent to include it. 87.194.8.35 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my (limited) knowledge, there are three resolutions used for Freeview channels, 720x576, 704x576 and 544x576 (source). I can't tell you if they are progressive or interlaced though (I suspect the latter). --tgheretford (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution 

message: Does anybody agree with me that the Sky Channels section belongs in Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom rather than here; as this article is about the Freeview consortium, rather than the channels available via Digital Terrestrial Television? Guinness 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky Channels 

message: Someone needs to do something about that ugly pie chart near the top. It looks too pixelated. Wiki.user 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pie Chart 

message: Is there a need for the channel list to be on the Freeview page.  The page contains a link to Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom which lists all the channels along with further information about each channel.
pjb007 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Channels 

message: Just to clear up that confusing inclusion of "Cary Wakefield" on the article infobox; I have tracked down the mysterious being and they happen to be the Freeview General Manager.
http://www.freeview.co.uk/press/pr060207
/Marbles 12:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, thanks, though you needn't have gone to the effort since the infobox already said 'Cary Wakefield (General Manager)'! - Green Tentacle 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha. Okay, sorry I noticed Briantist questioned who the person was the other day and removed it, not sure if it was re-instated though. /Marbles 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologise. I restored the information straight away. To be honest, I have no idea why Brianist removed it in the first place. - Green Tentacle 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cary Wakefield 

message: Someone keeps posting
'*UKTV G2 In August 2007, sources indicated that the UKTV network were considering bringing the channel onto the Digital terrestrial freeview network to replace UKTV Bright Ideas, which currently only averages 0.1% of the audience share. It is still unknown whether this will happen or what timescale it'll occur on.''
This is speculation and breaks WP:CBALL as this has not yet happened.  Please provide a link if the story is a real one, and not this one!     BRIANTIST  (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UK G2 SPECULATION

message: Can someone confirm through some web resource that Thomas Cook channel does not exist any more on Freeview? The reason I have kept adding it is because both official pages (Freeview and Thomas Cook) claim it still exists. ZanderSchubert 08:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Cook TV 

message: I read somewhere recently that Sky News might be taken off Freeview. I was wondering whether this was still the case as I've just switched on my set and found UKtv History on Channel 82 where Sky News should be, showing an old episode of Sharpe. Can anyone advise? Thanks 81.152.222.14 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't tell you whether Sky News is being taken off Freeview, but as regards the problem you've been having, I suspect you'll find there's some kind of technical glitch somewhere. I've just had the same thing happen to me, but it came back again after about half an hour. Cheers Paul20070 11:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for getting back to me. I'm happy to report that it's back on my set too. Thanks for the advice. 81.152.222.14 11:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for bumping an old thread, but this may have referred to Sky's plans for its own range of DTT boxes, codenamed "Picnic" . This proposal involves Sky launching its own range of DTT boxes, which would require a subscription for the Sky services, leading to their withdrawal from the Freeview platform.  The Picnic proposal was announced in October last year but things have gone quiet since then. Perhaps the article could mention this. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article on Sky Picnic. As it hasn't affected Freeview at the moment, I personally wouldn't mention anything here yet, and nor would it have anything to do with the discussion above (I need to also say that Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article and not for technical issues or a discussion board). It may be worth adding things to do with Picnic in its own article, making sure you give sources to ensure the article meets Wikipedia verifiability policy. --tgheretford (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Sky Picnic to the See also section, as it is an interesting potential development for Freeview.  Given the current state of play, Picnic may never get off the ground, but it is worth a link from the Freeview article itself. There was no intention of violating WP:FORUM here. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky News 

message: Is the channel seriously being renamed Dave for its Freeview launch. It seems an odd thing to do. What's the logic behind it? Paul20070 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I checked out this news article and it seems UKTV G2 is being renamed Dave. I also found the answer to my question, so please accept my apologies for reverting what I thought was a piece of vandalism. I still think it's a strange thing to do though. Cheers Paul20070 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How correct can it be if it has it on the uktv.co.uk website. :D. AxG @ ►talk 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept it is true, but having a man's name seemingly stuck in an article looks very odd, without going through the history page.  That's why I have added a warning to the text. Bevo74 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK G2/Dave 

message: Why do we not have a section listing new channels that will be added to Freeview? All we have is current channels and former channels. Can we add this section? 86.158.126.106 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably best not to. The Freeview rumour mill is full of speculation and nonsense. If we have this section then there will not be much reliable content in it and it will become a magnet for speculation. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, there was a section with this removed a few days ago, citing that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I feel inclined to agree, because a lot of references are for speculation which should not be included in Wikipedia. Plus the information in this article (ie. The Hits → 4Music) could be replicated within the Virgin Media/Sky Digital (UK & Ireland) EPG articles. That sections is probably left out as there are better sources of this information elsewhere (ie. news search engines, media news websites, media forums). --tgheretford (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming Channels 

message: I'm here to open a discussion as regards the amount of information we should display about channels which do not broadcast for their full hours. I have recently been reverting edits concerning UKTV History, where users have added the times at which it broadcasts, because it is the only channel where this information is displayed. I believe we should have a standard format for this, and either add the infotion to all relevant channels or leave it out (I'm happy to go along with whichever method other editors feel si appropriate). What I don't think we should do, however, is have a mizture of the two. Does anyone have any views on this? Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I ugess I should add that I personally think the information would be useful, but I leave it to others to decide. Paul20070 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: ok, there's quite a few, so I think it would be worth adding them. Here are the relevant channels and the times they broadcast on Freeview;
* UKTV History - 0600 - 1800
* Virgin 1 - 1800 - 0600
* Smile TV - 0300 - 0700
* Gems TV - 0945 - 1245
* The Jewellery Channel - 1900 - 2100 (1000 - 1200 on Five US
* The Community Channel - 0600 - 0900
* Teachers TV - 1600 - 1700
Not sure about the times of bid-tv and QVC in Wales. I also notice that not all of the articles on these channels actually displays the time (Smile TV for example). I might add that in as well. Paul20070 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channels which do not broadcast for their full hours 

message: Why has a load of technical information been added to the channel list? Information like the parent company and aspect ratio should surely be in the digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom article, which is more technically-minded and already contains technical information like the multiplex. - Green Tentacle (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel list 

message: I reverted an unreferenced edit which claimed Five Life is to be rebranded as Fiver in April. Not sure whether or not this was correct. Can anybody shed any light on the matter? Paul20070 (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found something about it in the Five Life article. I'll put it back in this article, but I think we probably need a reference to back it up. Paul20070 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's a brand new logo, so I gusss it has to be true. I think we should find a reference for it though otherwise there's a danger of people stumbling into a trap. My excuse is that my system's going a bit slow this evening and didn't bring up the image when I checked out the article. I think it's time to log off for the night. Paul20070 (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Life 

message: Please can you we have a section on the merits of each.
Lots of people will be trying to work out which to buy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newschapmj1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are trying to inform the reader what 'Freeview' is not Freesat and this is not the place for the pros and cons of the systems. That info can be found elsewhere on the web. --  15:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeview versus Freesat 

message: As the first "digital only" transmission (with decommissioning of analogue) has just happened, the relevant sections have to be changed. 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changeover

message: This paragraph:
"On 23 June 2009, Setanta Sports went into administration following financial difficulties at 2.30pm, with its Setanta Sports 1 channel closed down at 6pm on the same day. The American sports network ESPN bought the rights to the Premier League games owned by Setanta, and plans to launch a new channel to screen them."
should not be in an article of which the subject is "an operator of free digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom". Setanta Sports was a subscription channel, and ESPN is currently free-to-view with a view to become a subscription based channel come the new Premier League season. Any reason why this paragraph has been reverted back? I really don't want to be dragged into a revert war with anyone, but in my view the above paragraph, of which Setanta and ESPN being encrypted channels contradicts with the subject of this article, a free-to-air platform. This paragraph needs to be removed from the Freeview article and placed into the digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom article and/or Top Up TV and associated channel articles.
Any objections to the removal of this paragraph from the article, or Freeview being labelled a "free-to-air" platform? --tgheretford (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is surprising that this is so controversial. While Freeview boxes are mainly for free to air channels, some of them have slots for subscription channels. I am not going to argue strongly for the inclusion/exclusion of Setanta, but it did seem notable because of the news coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the subscription channels are not part of the Freeview service - they come under the brand of Top Up TV, and any discussion of Setanta belongs (and indeed is) in that article.  I've removed the paragraph. AJCham2097 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Setanta was available on Freeview, albeit as a subscription channel through Top Up TV, so it is relevant to a certain degree. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setanta Sports on "Freeview" 

message: Since September 30 2009 has just gone, the first paragraph includes a sentence which now needs to delete "forthcoming" and to go in past tense. Perhaps there could be information here about how people in the United Kingdom found the switch and re-tuning on this day - after all, it was mentioned on the six p.m. news on Radio Four (the news report also referred to a woman who appeared to lose ITV 3 and ITV 4 in the re-tuning, although that might be a little too trivial to go in the article). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good information to add. Here's a couple of articles on the subject.   I believe quite a lot of people were expected to lose ITV3 and ITV4 (though I'm not sure of the exact number) so it's definitely relevant. My own experience of the retune was, I'm glad to say, without drama. ITV3 and Five went off air at midday, but returned once I'd retuned my set. I also notice some of the channels have moved while there seem to be one or two new channels available. I might see what I can add to the article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Now a need for past tense

message: The "Technical problems" section has run into some fairly major WP:NOTHOWTO issues. It should be enough to summarise in prose what the problems were, without listing all the boxes affected. This is best left to the external links.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to convert some of this section to prose, although there are still issues. I think it is useful to mention some of the models, but perhaps not to have a great long list of them. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There may still be a WP:UNDUE issue here, because it is estimated that only a few percent of older boxes were affected by the issues described in this section. My personal choice would be to omit the box brand names altogether, and to leave the listing of them to the citations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, I've removed them and merged the sections. Should read better now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical problems 

message: Sky Player is cameing to freeview and sky sports
this is good news?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.107.163 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky Player 

message: Should the bitrate drop be put into the article? DF76 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like everything else, this would need a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. People have noticed this. DF76 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source mentioned above has a problem because it comes from a tech forum, which is not really a reliable source per WP:SPS. There have been complaints about low bit rates on Freeview and DAB radio, but without mainstream media sourcing it is hard to use them in an article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Even the blog post linked in your forum post doesn't clear the reliability threshold. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition to which, bitrate is not the only arbiter of picture quality - there is also resolution and encoding efficiency. Arqiva in particular are squeezing more and more channels into lower and lower amounts of bitrate, particularly as new technology allows (e.g. new encoders from Tandberg). Just referring to lower or higher bitrates alone is not really a useful statement. Bonusballs (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitrates 

message: What the heck is "the only prevailing.." meant to mean? If someone put it in as a synomym for "the only remaining.." then I can tell them a) it's pretentious and b) it's inaccurate as a synonym. Harfarhs (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: I'm planning to remove all references to the so-called "predecessor" company DWSCO 2284 Ltd. It's clear that some editor does not understand that a great many non-trading dummy companies are registered at Companies House, and are only renamed and become active when required as it saves the delay of registering a completely new company. The Companies House website clearly shows that "DWSCO 2284 Ltd" was renamed to its present name on 13th August 2002, a few months before it started operations, and it obviously never had anything to do with television broadcasting. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  DWSCO 2284 Ltd 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Freeview (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090711215852/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2008/04/nr_20080403b to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2008/04/nr_20080403b
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Freeview (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018035532/http://www.freeview.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Freeview-Channel-Guide_010813.pdf to http://www.freeview.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Freeview-Channel-Guide_010813.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614090155/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2009/06/nr_20090611a to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2009/06/nr_20090611a
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified