BBC Parliament Campaign

Ironic we're discussing this as on BBC Parliament's nightly roundup programme, The Record (its on at 11 o'clock, definitely worth watching, especially if you don't want to wait for Despatch Box) they've just said that Kate Hoey is campaigning to get it fully available on DTT.

When I had Digital terrestrial I remember how frustrating it was just having the audio, you really appreciate the benefit of having the pictures (and constant captions giving you the names of all the MPs and news-24 style notes about the debates).

The select committee coverage is good to watch as well, as is some of the GLA stuff at weekends.

They do put a hell of a lot of work into the programmes and its a shame its not published across other BBC channels more.

William

The reason why the BBC seems to be in favour of DSAT over DTT is because the DTT set-top-box doesn't have the technology for all the interactive BBCi services apart from BBCi Text.

That is why things like BBCi News Interactive have appeared on DSAT, because the Sky DigiBox is able to handle these interactive applications.

Maybe all this has something to do with it's original name, 'The Parliament Channel' i think it was called that anyway,this may have something to do with why it is neglected because it is now known as 'BBC Parliament' now but it still may be run by the same company who did it before, and they just use the BBC's name on the channel.

Stu

Ive found some old info about the old Parliamentary Channel

http://www.tvhome.f2s.com/upload/pc.jpg

THE PARLIAMENTARY CHANNEL
CREATED

 January 1992


OWNERSHIP

 The Parliamentary Channel was created by the British cable industry based on the C-SPAN model in America to provide a dedicated service to cable customers covering gavel to gavel coverage of Parliament. The Channel is run as a non-profit venture, without any public money or sponsorship. It is owned and funded by major UK cable operators:


—  Cable & Wireless Communications, NTL/Comcast UK, General Cable and Telewest. The Channel is managed on behalf of its owners by Flextech plc.
HOURS OF BROADCAST

 Mondays to Fridays 5.30 am to Midnight, Saturdays and Sundays 5.30 am to 6.00 pm (115 hours of political programming, 36 weeks a year)


WHAT DOES THE PARLIAMENTARY CHANNEL OFFER?

Informative Programming:


—  Full, unedited coverage of both Houses when Parliament is in session
—  Full recordings of Parliamentary Committees (seven each week Parliament is in session)

—  Highlights from American and European politics

—  Unedited coverage of the three main party conferences

 On screen captions provide constantly updated information about the people and the issues being broadcast.


Information Services:


—  The Channel's website www.parlchan.co.uk/ provides informative weekly guides to Parliament, constituency maps and MP biographies. It also offers a comprehensive education section with lesson plans and links for teachers.
—  The Channel's Teletext service, PARLTEXT, invites viewers behind the scenes of Parliament giving instant access to programme listings, details of Bills and Government offices.

CURRENT FUNDING TO DATE

 £3,035,667


SUBSCRIBERS AT PRESENT

 2,012,299


PRICE PER SUB

 10p per month for 10 months per year




(Edited by buzz at 4:34 pm on Jan. 17, 2002)

Like so many parts of the BBC's Digital package, BBC Parliament is, I feel, to some extent a wasted opportunity at the moment.

If we ignore the capacity issue, which can only really be solved by the BBC getting at least part of a new multiplex when one launches (As the BBC refuses to compress its signals any further), There is far more which could be done with facilities like 1/4-screening, Text pages, and extended coverage. What is needed in British politics, is a move away from seeing political broadcasting as pointing a camera at the Commons and letting them get on with it.
This is important, but it is not necessarily very informative or very involving. The average person does not have the time or the inclination to watch a bunch of fairly pompous, mainly middle-aged men shouting at one another and using long words for several hours. We need to ber given far more background information on speakers and issues. The current 'info banners' are useful, but they are slow to cycle and are usually very limited in content.
My first move would be to seriously extend the content of the BBC Parliament Digital Text service. The technology allows for extensive biographies, archive articles about the MPs and their interests, lists of issues they are known to favour, photos and other useful data, which could be pulled up on-screen during the dabate as an addition to the basic information provided as a default.
Secondly, the BBC need to invest in more and better debate programmes, which would not only fill out the schedule (avoiding long periods of running the cycling slides) but would encourage people to watch and get involved. And not just debates involving politicians and Newspaper editors (though these have a place), invite involved parties, local people affected by issues under discussion, celebrities (As tried with some success on Question Time). The views expressed will not be any more or less valid, but they will appeal more to the viewing and voting public.
To address the problem of the long parliamentary debates, how about a short nightly, then a longer weekly digest programme, covering the major debates of the day/week? It would allow busy people the chance to catch up on progress they couldn't or didn't want to watch in full.
And how about extended versions of existing programmes? At the end of 'On The Record' or 'Breakfast with Frost'....
'We're leaving BBC ONE now, coming next the EastEnders omnibus - but you can continue to watch on BBC Parliament for the next 45 minutes' or whatever - They could cover over that bit on the BBC Parliament feed by showing news headlines or a 'Coming Up' slot that was pre-recorded. It would also add to the idea that the Digital channels are a premium service which viewers really should be switching over to - Robot wars won't make the older age groups switch to digital, but maybe missing the interview with IDS would?

Finally, I agree, channel presentation/graphics ARE important in making a channel appealing, and the current BBC Parliament look fails miserably - It needs something doing. it is possible to be important without being dull.

News just in...

'We've changed the on-screen text, and (this week) revamped the scedules so
they work in a more orderly fashion (Lords next day, Select committees from
6pm Fri-Sun, etc.)...

But the channel branding does need a new look, in keeping with the rest of
News. The plan is to do this - and go widescreen - by October.'

So looks like it's being REVAMPED in possible the BBC News style. And getting widescreen!

YEAH! He sounded quite excited himself and instead of dear blach blah blah he began with 'I agree!'

Fingers crossed people!


(Edited by Big Brother at 10:07 pm on Jan. 19, 2002)

>Yes but it isn't a space problem, its a legality problem, you won't >get BBC World over here and thats it.

What legality problem? It transmits on a satellite whose footprint covers the UK. It's perfectly possible to receive it here, it's just not made official. It is run by BBC Worldwide - a UK based company and produced in the UK.

It seems to be on officially in nearly every country in the world (except for the UK).

So what is this big legal issue with it appearing here? Personally I think it's nothing more than a fear of internal competition with News 24, a license fee service and World, a commercial service.

There seems to be a conflict of interest between BBC Worldwide and BBC proper. Worldwide produces commercial channels (which I don't think they should be allowed to have) which the Beeb then don't want to have here because it might create competition with their state funded channels. How much do you wanna bet that if News 24 didn't exist we'd have world in the Sky EPG?

You can perfectly watch BBC World in the UK under the EU's 'Television without Frontiers' directive, so there, but you won't see it on any UK based platform!

Yes BBC World looks like a poor man's News 24, but it has better presentation standards and presenters like Nik Gowing and Steven Cole plus presenters from other cultures, and I can watch Asia Today at a decent time unlike crap 24 which show it at 4.45am!

(Edited by harshy at 8:40 pm on Jan. 17, 2002)

Why can't you accept this reason for not having BBC World in the UK? You know that it's run by the BBC's commercial arm, but it's not imediately to everybody obvious is it?

It would be in direct competition with News 24. It's funded by advertising. It wouldn't promote the BBC... do you need any more reasons?

Think of it this way, BBC Worldwide can get the rights to Tweenies BUT just how many thousands of people would be confused if the repeat rights to Tweenies programs were sold to another channel in the UK like the CITV strand for example? In the same way, would it not confuse Jo Bloggs, the average licence holder, to see the same news report from John Simpson on 2 channels within the same hour, one funded by his contibution and one from advertising?

Peter.

Well BBC News 24 does run a proper news service, it's just not as good with idents and presentation and BBC NEWS graphics like BBC World!

(Edited by harshy at 8:54 pm on Jan. 17, 2002)

Maybe Parliament will help ease all this about world! Seen as this is suppose to be about BBC Parliament.

>in the UK like the CITV strand for example? In the same way, >would it not confuse Jo Bloggs, the average licence holder, to >see the same news report from John Simpson on 2 channels >within the
Jo Bloggs the average license holder doesn't have anything more than analogue terrestrial and can only get BBC1 and 2.

The average Sky endowed license holder probably watches Sky News more than News 24.

And the average Sky endowed News 24 license holder wouldn't realise what World is, much less watch it for long enough to realise that the same news reports are on there that were on News 24 a few hours ago.

People aren't going to suddenly ditch News 24 in droves because of the existance of World in the Sky EPG.

And in any case, I think the fact that the Beeb are scared of one of their own commercial channels just highlights the fact that commercial advertising funded channels aren't what the BBC is supposed to be all about and so they shouldn't be allowed to have them.