Talk:Freeview (UK)/Archive 1

message: Would it be possible to mention and possibly link to Freeview equivilants in other European and international countries (if they exist). I think a link to say List of digital television deployments by country would be convenient, what do you think? - Canderra 18:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeview in other countries 

message: It looks like (at least) the start of the first sentence of this paragraph has got lost. I can't work out what it should say; if no-one else is sure, I guess it needs tidying up!
SadGamerGeek 17:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New compression technology 

message: Shouldn't this be described as being run by the ITV franchise holder for that region and Channel 4?
:No, because it is run on a national level by a consortium called Digital 3 and 4, which is a corsortium made up of ITV Network Limit (which itself consists of all the ITV franchise holders (not just ITV plc)) and Channel 4. - Green Tentacle 12:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel 3/4 Multiplex 

message: When you walk into an electical retailer in the UK, most high quality TV sets on display have an "HD ready" logo on them to signify that when High Definition TV (HDTV) comes along, the TV will be able to cope with it.
There are many unanswered questions regarding Freeview and HDTV. There is no information on the freeview.co.uk website.
Specifically, we should detail:
* Timescale for adoption of HDTV in the UK.
* Whether existing Freeview equipment will handle HDTV or whether everyone will have to go out and buy new set top boxes.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.85.120 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 October 2005
:No timescale for Freeview to get HDTV but it cannot happen before the analogue switchoff, and no current boxes are able to handle it for a huge number of reasons, the first one being that they have no suitable outputs, followed by the fact that HDTV DTT is likely to use MPEG4 and not MPEG2. No point going into crystal ball mode, is clear from the current article that its not HD-ready. --Kiand 19:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My prediction (going into crystal ball mode, because while there is no point, it can be fun) is that DTT will never go HD in the UK. Bandwitdh is a scarce resource on DTT. An HD stream will take up the bandwidth that could be used for maybe 4 SD streams. I can not think of a way that a single HD channel could make the same revenue as 4 SD channels. On cable and satellite, bandwidth is not the issue it is on DTT, so far easier to add HD channels, without having to remove a number of SD channels. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 21:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With the (theorethical but snowballs chance in hell) of 9 muxes after switchoff, plus the use of AVC, you could get HDTV on a 2 for 1 basis. But the boxes would cost a lot more. The BBC -are- intending to go HD on BBC 1 on DTT after switchoff, but thats because they'll probably be able to get another mux. The other 4 potential extra ones are unlikely to happen :/ --Kiand 21:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As I understand it MPEG4 H264, DivX, and WMV HD all give superb HD in around 4Mb/s bandwidth.  BBC2 currently used 5Mb/s babndwidth, with dubious quality. So the obvious way forward is new boxes with new HD channels for those who want HD. The fact that the HD channels make more effective use of bandwidth will help counter the pressure to replace them (with a single SD channel viewable on old boxes). One day, presumably, SD channels can be phased out and replaced one for one with HD, forcing everyone to buy new boxes. It happened before with 405 line! --Lindosland 13:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 4Mbits doesn't provide watchable quality HD, in anything. It provides quite decent quality SD, however. --Kiand 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Definition TV 

message: I've added quite a bit on this, whilst remaining aware that some may consider this off-topic or possibly verging on POV.  However, the ideas I have tried to put over are so important to the potential customer who may use this page before buying, and so linked to the fate of the planet, through energy wastage, that I think they merit a place here. --Lindosland 15:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think (m)any people use the Wikipedia for product advice, and I don't think that content is useful - or even accurate - IDTV's use less power than a TV + a STB. I've already removed that inaccuracy. --Kiand 15:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Namely because an IDT doesn't use any more power than an analogue TV and an STB is always going to use some power. Additionally, no matter how "helpful" it may be, you don't go to an encyclopedia to get a POV explanation of a consumer technology. It has absolutely no place here. --Kiand 15:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The EPG/PVR concept 

message: Should the channel list include 301, 302, 303, other channels or Top-Up TV channels. Below are three questions just put your name under the question you feel is right.
This will last from 20 February - 20 March 2006 (1 Month). British TV
===Include All Channels===
*British TV
===Don't Include The Channels===
*No, because they're either not "channels" or not free; this issue has already been thrashed out a few times, and theres no concensus to put them on the list, at all. --Kiand 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been discussed before... Surely as a user with records going back less than a week you would not really be in a position to recount what has been discussed before. Unless of course you have another persona that was engaged in any previous discussions. Can you perhaps provide a link to these previous discussions Frelke 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to that comment, scroll up the page a few lines and recall the conversation that you, not I, were involved in. Judging from what was said, there is some debate as to whether saying 301-303 are not channels is fact or POV. I favour the former. IP 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: *No, because they're either not "channels" or not free; this issue has already been thrashed out a few times, and theres no concensus to put them on the list, at all. --Kiand 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been discussed before... Surely as a user with records going back less than a week you would not really be in a position to recount what has been discussed before. Unless of course you have another persona that was engaged in any previous discussions. Can you perhaps provide a link to these previous discussions Frelke 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to that comment, scroll up the page a few lines and recall the conversation that you, not I, were involved in. Judging from what was said, there is some debate as to whether saying 301-303 are not channels is fact or POV. I favour the former. IP 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Include The Channels

message: Figures need updating:
Google news results Bigpinkthing 14:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Freeview deployment figures

message: SmileTV is available on all DTT boxes free of charge, but should this channel be listed in the Freeview article? As far as I am aware, SmileTV is not being advertised as part of the Freeview line-up, and it is mentioned on Top Up TV's front page. My recommendation is that the channel should be removed from this article, and placed in the article on Top Up TV, with a few words regarding its status. Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? RobWill80 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the rule has always been that all free-to-air channels are listed, which means it should be included. There used to be a note at the top of the channel list to say this. SmileTV might be related to Top Up TV, but it is not part of the Top Up TV service (Teachers' TV exists in a similiar situation). Therefore it should stay here. - Green Tentacle 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's fair enough. I was unsure of what we define as "Freeview channels" in this article, because I would've doubted that I would see it mentioned on Freeview's website or other publicity material (given the connection to Top Up TV). Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. RobWill80 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just spotted that it is listed on this official channel line up. - Green Tentacle 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised to see it listed there. Good find. RobWill80 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SmileTV]]: A Freeview channel? 

message: I've left this alone for a while now, but the latest incarnation of the ITV1 listing had a number of innaccuracies, so I've decided to correct it. The national name of ITV1 is 'ITV1' and therefore it should be listed as such. The channel was previously named 'ITV'. In 2001, ITV Network Ltd (a company made up of all the ITV franchise holders) took the decision to rename the entire channel ITV1 (the decision was not, as some people would have you believe, taken by ITV plc, who did not even exist then). This made absolutely no difference to the on-air names because all of the different franchises used their own regional names on air. In 2002, the franchises owned by Carlton and Granada changed their own-air identities to simply ITV1 (or 'ITV1 Wales' for HTV Wales).
Some people would have you believe that ITV1 is just a brand name used by the ITV plc-owned stations - this is not the case, as the whole channel was renamed ITV1 (in a decision agreed upon by all the ITV companies) a whole year before the rebranding took place. The name is used by all the ITV companies to refer to the channel nationally (see, for example, page 37 of this report by Scottish Television).
The channel's national name is ITV1 and so should be listed as such on the channel list. Users can follow the link for information on the regional names. - Green Tentacle 15:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed the latter link, I get a 404.  In what way did the name change manifest itself in 2001, then, other than news stories?  Note that the news story says that it is "set to" happen, not that it in fact already had.  The decision could have been taken but never implemented, for example.  Morwen - Talk 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link does appear to be 404ing now. It was definitely there when I originally posted it in April. The ITV1 name was definitely implemented almost immediately and was used in a number of promos and the like. This page from TV Ark includes a video of a promo stating that ITV is now called ITV1 (dated August 2001, one month after the announcement). The same page notes that the rebranding of Carlton and Granada-owned regions to ITV1 did not happen until October 2002. - Green Tentacle 19:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found that STV report. It's now here; page 37 is the relevant part. - Green Tentacle 01:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did that promo run in Scotland/Northern Ireland/Channel Islands, or just on the Carlton/Granada stations?  Morwen - Talk 11:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no idea. - Green Tentacle 13:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ITV1