NG
noggin
Founding member
NG
I can't remember where it is, but I think there is a remote Scottish relay that uses the Fatsat feed as its primary source for PSB 1 and 3.
I think it's Bruernish
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=1075&pageid=1282
The Fatsat downlink dish is on the ground. The smaller dish mounted on the mast itself is a V-Sat
uplink/downlink dish, used for telemetry. Quite a few relays have these, where the more usual ADSL line is not available or viable.
That's interesting. Does that mean that there is multiplexing kit on site to reassemble a mux?
At least there would need to be that. I guess either they are CBR-enough to allow a mux to be assembled. (CBBC, BBC News Channel, BBC Parliament and CBeebies/BBC Four in SD could be statmuxed together, but BBC One SD and BBC Two SD would need to be CBR to allow the national variations to take place?) or they are decoded and recoded and muxed for SD?
noggin
Founding member
Above and beyond: Keeping TV and radio services on air
I can't remember where it is, but I think there is a remote Scottish relay that uses the Fatsat feed as its primary source for PSB 1 and 3.
I think it's Bruernish
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=1075&pageid=1282
The Fatsat downlink dish is on the ground. The smaller dish mounted on the mast itself is a V-Sat
uplink/downlink dish, used for telemetry. Quite a few relays have these, where the more usual ADSL line is not available or viable.
That's interesting. Does that mean that there is multiplexing kit on site to reassemble a mux?
At least there would need to be that. I guess either they are CBR-enough to allow a mux to be assembled. (CBBC, BBC News Channel, BBC Parliament and CBeebies/BBC Four in SD could be statmuxed together, but BBC One SD and BBC Two SD would need to be CBR to allow the national variations to take place?) or they are decoded and recoded and muxed for SD?
NG
Surely buying Sky News in its current form would be tricky given its integration into the wider Sky operation at Osterley? Plus who would buy a loss-making operation?
noggin
Founding member
Sky News presentation - New studio onwards
Sky News can always be sold, closure is a last resort. Who will buy if such a thing occurs I wonder!
Surely buying Sky News in its current form would be tricky given its integration into the wider Sky operation at Osterley? Plus who would buy a loss-making operation?
NG
The issue with Sky is that they are walking a very fine line as both a platform operator AND channel operators/programming producer/rights owner. MPs will need to be persuaded that they aren't reducing the public service elements which Sky currently voluntarily provide (Sky News, Sky Arts etc.) at the expense of increased profits, whilst they effectively have a very strong hold over the market in both platform and channel operations.
If they start annoying Parliament, the rules can be changed...
The Mouse doesn't need to be nostalgic, it just needs to be aware of the environment it is operating in, and I'm sure it is...
Short-to-mid term I don't see Disney rocking the boat. Longer term - will there need to be a 24 hour linear news channel at all?
noggin
Founding member
Sky News presentation - New studio onwards
If you knew how CNN made money you would know that "working" with affiliates is not a money maker, you need content to SELL. But it doesnt matter, If Mickey has 100% of Sky they probably wont care what the government thinks, as long as it does not fall afoul of the OFCOM or other regulations. Murdoch was always interested in shaping governments and opinions, so he loved dangling them carrots... ehhh. The Mouse doenst care. Just line 'dem pockets with cash and all is good. Plus we wouldnt be talking about this if Murdoch & Co hadnt talk about closing it to make the deal. So you think Mickey would have any for SkyNews sentiment either? Highly unlikely. Lets be clear.... the Mouse isnt that nostalgic.
Like Rhianna says.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORmV7SSxYFg
Like Rhianna says.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORmV7SSxYFg
The issue with Sky is that they are walking a very fine line as both a platform operator AND channel operators/programming producer/rights owner. MPs will need to be persuaded that they aren't reducing the public service elements which Sky currently voluntarily provide (Sky News, Sky Arts etc.) at the expense of increased profits, whilst they effectively have a very strong hold over the market in both platform and channel operations.
If they start annoying Parliament, the rules can be changed...
The Mouse doesn't need to be nostalgic, it just needs to be aware of the environment it is operating in, and I'm sure it is...
Short-to-mid term I don't see Disney rocking the boat. Longer term - will there need to be a 24 hour linear news channel at all?
NG
Easter 2018 ish, there's a lot of kit being/to be installed by ITV.
Is ITV installing it - or are Studioworks? From my understanding TC2's gallery is being beefed up a bit, and I guess there will need to be some additional post production, graphics and newsroom computer kit installed?
noggin
Founding member
Good Morning Britain
Does anyone know of a date for the move to TVC?
Easter 2018 ish, there's a lot of kit being/to be installed by ITV.
Is ITV installing it - or are Studioworks? From my understanding TC2's gallery is being beefed up a bit, and I guess there will need to be some additional post production, graphics and newsroom computer kit installed?
NG
I think it's Bruernish
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=1075&pageid=1282
The Fatsat downlink dish is on the ground. The smaller dish mounted on the mast itself is a V-Sat
uplink/downlink dish, used for telemetry. Quite a few relays have these, where the more usual ADSL line is not available or viable.
It's interesting to contrast this with Norway. Over there they have patches of population who can't receive DTT (because of geography and coverage) but some of these also can't receive DSat because of high fjord-side cliffs. To cope with these, they have remote re-broadcasting systems at the top of the cliffs which receive satellite broadcasts and retransmit a low power DTT mux - very similar to what Arqiva do with the Fatsat system - but on a smaller scale.
I'm led to believe that the American Sirius XM satellite radio platform has back up terrestrial relays operating
in an SFN with the D-Sat signals to serve urban canyons in the cities ? My only experience of Sirius was a hire car in British Columbia. Reception cut out, under moderate tree cover, and in steep mountainous valleys up Route 99, but I don't recall problems in Vancouver city centre amongst the sky scrapers, so maybe ?
Urban canyons and long road tunnels I believe. It's L-band (like DAB could also be) isn't it?
noggin
Founding member
Above and beyond: Keeping TV and radio services on air
I think it's Bruernish
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=1075&pageid=1282
The Fatsat downlink dish is on the ground. The smaller dish mounted on the mast itself is a V-Sat
uplink/downlink dish, used for telemetry. Quite a few relays have these, where the more usual ADSL line is not available or viable.
It's interesting to contrast this with Norway. Over there they have patches of population who can't receive DTT (because of geography and coverage) but some of these also can't receive DSat because of high fjord-side cliffs. To cope with these, they have remote re-broadcasting systems at the top of the cliffs which receive satellite broadcasts and retransmit a low power DTT mux - very similar to what Arqiva do with the Fatsat system - but on a smaller scale.
I'm led to believe that the American Sirius XM satellite radio platform has back up terrestrial relays operating
in an SFN with the D-Sat signals to serve urban canyons in the cities ? My only experience of Sirius was a hire car in British Columbia. Reception cut out, under moderate tree cover, and in steep mountainous valleys up Route 99, but I don't recall problems in Vancouver city centre amongst the sky scrapers, so maybe ?
Urban canyons and long road tunnels I believe. It's L-band (like DAB could also be) isn't it?
NG
How would you propose Sky and Local TV stations work together to increase commercial income within the UK broadcast and local media landscape?
But in any event, they need to come up with something to make money..... even if its selling Sky branded Tupperware door to door. They cant look down on any revenue stream. The Mouse is gonna be their pimp and he's gonna want his money. Quick..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORmV7SSxYFg
Unless they take the view, that Sky did, that a loss-leading News operation that serves as a fig leaf for a pretty mercenary close-to-monopoly on platform provision AND movie/sports rights is worth it. Keep interviewing MPs on your news channel to avoid them feeling too bad about you running a monopoly... See also Sky Arts...
noggin
Founding member
Sky News presentation - New studio onwards
Clearly you dont understand how CNN monetizes their content.
How would you propose Sky and Local TV stations work together to increase commercial income within the UK broadcast and local media landscape?
Quote:
But in any event, they need to come up with something to make money..... even if its selling Sky branded Tupperware door to door. They cant look down on any revenue stream. The Mouse is gonna be their pimp and he's gonna want his money. Quick..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORmV7SSxYFg
Unless they take the view, that Sky did, that a loss-leading News operation that serves as a fig leaf for a pretty mercenary close-to-monopoly on platform provision AND movie/sports rights is worth it. Keep interviewing MPs on your news channel to avoid them feeling too bad about you running a monopoly... See also Sky Arts...
NG
Don't think you can lift and shift the CNN+Affiliate model to Sky+Local TV here. The media landscape is very different, as is the physical geography. CNN needed affiliates to cover the entire US effectively. Sky doesn't - it's perfectly possible to cover it from a relatively small number of regional offices as nowhere in the UK is that far away... It's really not that useful to map US experiences into the UK experience.
There's a reason most European countries (not just the UK) have a very different media landscape to the US.
noggin
Founding member
Sky News presentation - New studio onwards
I understand their sentiments and the importance of the channel to the public at large. But unfortunately they still havent figured out a way to make money. And monetize their content like CNN has over the years. By aggressively selling it and setting up an affiliate service and such that actually turn profits. (They missed opportunity in my opinion to work with the local channels.) Its commercial tv after all, not government funded tv like the BBC. So the they need a strategy to make money, plain and simple. Because if the channel survives the FOX/21C + SKY merger and is then taken over by Mickey & Co., they will likely not care if the channel closes because its not making any money. Or it may result in a severely reduced service and employee redundancies. So they need to figure something out and do it quick before the Mouse is in the house or SkyNews might be a shadow of its former self or disappear. Disney has been aggressively cutting back at legacy channels such as ESPN. I dont think SkyNews would be spared the same fate. Its always about the money. This bears watching in the long run.
Don't think you can lift and shift the CNN+Affiliate model to Sky+Local TV here. The media landscape is very different, as is the physical geography. CNN needed affiliates to cover the entire US effectively. Sky doesn't - it's perfectly possible to cover it from a relatively small number of regional offices as nowhere in the UK is that far away... It's really not that useful to map US experiences into the UK experience.
There's a reason most European countries (not just the UK) have a very different media landscape to the US.
NG
I can't remember where it is, but I think there is a remote Scottish relay that uses the Fatsat feed as its primary source for PSB 1 and 3.
I think it's Bruernish
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=1075&pageid=1282
The Fatsat downlink dish is on the ground. The smaller dish mounted on the mast itself is a V-Sat
uplink/downlink dish, used for telemetry. Quite a few relays have these, where the more usual ADSL line is not available or viable.
It's interesting to contrast this with Norway. Over there they have patches of population who can't receive DTT (because of geography and coverage) but some of these also can't receive DSat because of high fjord-side cliffs. To cope with these, they have remote re-broadcasting systems at the top of the cliffs which receive satellite broadcasts and retransmit a low power DTT mux - very similar to what Arqiva do with the Fatsat system - but on a smaller scale.
However rather than have a dedicated satellite distribution feed they effectively have a regular DSat receiver receiving the DTH FTV encrypted DVB-S transponder (including NRK1 in HD) and then this is rebroadcast as a DVB-T mux retaining the DSat encryption. A special CAM is available for IDTVs and set top boxes to receive this and decrypt it. (NRK's conventional DTT broadcasts are FTA unencrypted)
noggin
Founding member
Above and beyond: Keeping TV and radio services on air
I can't remember where it is, but I think there is a remote Scottish relay that uses the Fatsat feed as its primary source for PSB 1 and 3.
I think it's Bruernish
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=1075&pageid=1282
The Fatsat downlink dish is on the ground. The smaller dish mounted on the mast itself is a V-Sat
uplink/downlink dish, used for telemetry. Quite a few relays have these, where the more usual ADSL line is not available or viable.
It's interesting to contrast this with Norway. Over there they have patches of population who can't receive DTT (because of geography and coverage) but some of these also can't receive DSat because of high fjord-side cliffs. To cope with these, they have remote re-broadcasting systems at the top of the cliffs which receive satellite broadcasts and retransmit a low power DTT mux - very similar to what Arqiva do with the Fatsat system - but on a smaller scale.
However rather than have a dedicated satellite distribution feed they effectively have a regular DSat receiver receiving the DTH FTV encrypted DVB-S transponder (including NRK1 in HD) and then this is rebroadcast as a DVB-T mux retaining the DSat encryption. A special CAM is available for IDTVs and set top boxes to receive this and decrypt it. (NRK's conventional DTT broadcasts are FTA unencrypted)
NG
I get that the Phil and Holly combo has boosted figures but it seems to be a weird old marketing thing for some extra dosh.
Has it boosted them hugely? Are the ratings better with Holly than they were with Fern?
noggin
Founding member
This Morning
I get that the Phil and Holly combo has boosted figures but it seems to be a weird old marketing thing for some extra dosh.
Has it boosted them hugely? Are the ratings better with Holly than they were with Fern?
NG
Because it's This Morning with Phillip & Holly
THAT'S the brand, that's what gets them brilliant sponsorship deals and that's what pays the bills.
People can keep asking the same question about this time and time again, but the answer will remain the same.
I think it's OK to question whether the actual brand (rather than the programme title) is 'This Morning' or 'This Morning with Philip and Holly' though... (A brand isn't a title after all, nor is it a logo). I know a LOT of people who always just call the show 'This Morning' and think of Philip and Holly as being the current presenters of the show, rather than it being 'their' show. Far fewer people call the show 'Philip and Holly' as used to call the original show 'Richard and Judy' in my experience... In fact I've never heard 'Philip and Holly' used in the same way as 'Richard and Judy'.
I think sometimes the relative importance of presentation talent and production talent/format is tilted too much in the talent's direction. 'This Morning' is 'This Morning' whether Philip and Holly are presenting or Ruth or Eamonn, particularly when the consistent on-screen team around them remains the same.
Lorraine is a different kettle of fish, the show is based around her. This Morning is far less based around Philip and Holly...
noggin
Founding member
This Morning
I'm left wondering again why they didn't film Christmas titles with Eamonn & Ruth. Both couples could have been on the shoot and shots filmed between them. Fair enough if they were only doing friday's but 6 out of the 15 Christmas programmes have been presented by Eamonn & Ruth.
Because it's This Morning with Phillip & Holly
THAT'S the brand, that's what gets them brilliant sponsorship deals and that's what pays the bills.
People can keep asking the same question about this time and time again, but the answer will remain the same.
I think it's OK to question whether the actual brand (rather than the programme title) is 'This Morning' or 'This Morning with Philip and Holly' though... (A brand isn't a title after all, nor is it a logo). I know a LOT of people who always just call the show 'This Morning' and think of Philip and Holly as being the current presenters of the show, rather than it being 'their' show. Far fewer people call the show 'Philip and Holly' as used to call the original show 'Richard and Judy' in my experience... In fact I've never heard 'Philip and Holly' used in the same way as 'Richard and Judy'.
I think sometimes the relative importance of presentation talent and production talent/format is tilted too much in the talent's direction. 'This Morning' is 'This Morning' whether Philip and Holly are presenting or Ruth or Eamonn, particularly when the consistent on-screen team around them remains the same.
Lorraine is a different kettle of fish, the show is based around her. This Morning is far less based around Philip and Holly...
NG
I agree that stretching 4:3 to 16:9 (where things are distorted to the wrong shape) is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Cropping 4:3 to 16:9 is more complex. Done properly I can see an argument for doing it - particularly if part of a sequence of otherwise 16:9 native content and if the source sustains the crop in quality terms, and it can be done without massively compromising the original content. Cropping an entire 4:3 show to 16:9 with no thought to the composition? Not a fan of that...
noggin
Founding member
New Sky packages
But we can agree that stretching 4:3 images to fill a 16:9 screen or cropping 4:3 to 16:9 is artistic vandalism, right? 
I agree that stretching 4:3 to 16:9 (where things are distorted to the wrong shape) is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Cropping 4:3 to 16:9 is more complex. Done properly I can see an argument for doing it - particularly if part of a sequence of otherwise 16:9 native content and if the source sustains the crop in quality terms, and it can be done without massively compromising the original content. Cropping an entire 4:3 show to 16:9 with no thought to the composition? Not a fan of that...