I do think most of these channels are a waste of time.They should close them down and increase the bitrates to suitable standards- far too many channels are horribly overcompressed. There should be a minimum of 5mbps. Some channels are as low as 2 or 3.
But who should close them down and under what authority?
You can't just go up to a private company and say 'your channels are no good you must close them down'
I think OFCOM should do something, rather then stopping hardcore coming onto telly, bleedin nanny state organisation!!!
I wonder, will the digital TV bubble ever burst. I mean, how do half of these channels survive, and why do the advertisers advertise on them. Some of these channels have such low audiences they'd probably reach more people by handing out flyers in your local town centre!
There was a report in the Guardian about the Quiz channels, but the same principle can be applied to the dating/text channel as well.
The quiz channels don't need viewers, rather they need callers and they get enough of those mugs to call in to make the whole thing profitable.
Eventually people will, fingers crossed, start to cotton on and the bubble will burst. Indeed the reorganisation of Sky's EPG will help this, with these Quiz channels being moved out of the Entertainment section.
I think OFCOM should do something, rather then stopping hardcore coming onto telly, bleedin nanny state organisation!!!
So you disagree with them being a 'nanny state organisation'.... but you'd like them to close down TV stations that they don't think are good enough. What sort of logic is that?
I think OFCOM should do something, rather then stopping hardcore coming onto telly, bleedin nanny state organisation!!!
So you disagree with them being a 'nanny state organisation'.... but you'd like them to close down TV stations that they don't think are good enough. What sort of logic is that?
What i'm saying there's too be a quality threshold, I don't give a monkeys how it's done, but it would be good news for the end consumer, more high quality channels, better quality picture, more content to go around, what's your problem with this, too me it sounds like you like watching those silly quiz channels that rip off people!
What i'm saying there's too be a quality threshold, I don't give a monkeys how it's done, but it would be good news for the end consumer, more high quality channels, better quality picture, more content to go around, what's your problem with this, too me it sounds like you like watching those silly quiz channels that rip off people!
I only have access to one of those and never watch it.
I just disagree with the idea that there should be someone arbitarily ruling which channels should be allowed to broadcast or not. There's plenty of bandwidth, especially on satellite - if you or i don't like a channel we don't watch it and if no-one watches it it closes.
You wouldn't have a regulator for magazines ordering them to close because it felt that they weren't any good or were printed on crap quality paper, would you? I don't see that TV in this day and age should be any diffrent
What i'm saying there's too be a quality threshold, I don't give a monkeys how it's done, but it would be good news for the end consumer, more high quality channels, better quality picture, more content to go around, what's your problem with this, too me it sounds like you like watching those silly quiz channels that rip off people!
I only have access to one of those and never watch it.
I just disagree with the idea that there should be someone arbitarily ruling which channels should be allowed to broadcast or not. There's plenty of bandwidth, especially on satellite - if you or i don't like a channel we don't watch it and if no-one watches it it closes.
You wouldn't have a regulator for magazines ordering them to close because it felt that they weren't any good or were printed on crap quality paper, would you? I don't see that TV in this day and age should be any diffrent
Well I think Sky introducing 50 favourite channels complete with EPG details is a start in the right direction, although I wish you could delete the channels you don't want altogether of course on a non Sky box this is possible, but you can't with Sky although I know why.
I am hoping people cotton on to the fact that these quiz channels are rip off, then people will watch less and then it will close down, the Sky reshuffle should have course put them in less popular places rather then the current state of tangling it i with the entertainment section.
I do agree to what you are saying though, maybe the power should be back in the users hands like the good old analogue days where users could amend delete edit channels etc
There's plenty of bandwidth, especially on satellite
I'd disagree with that. There is not enough bandwidth. The channels are overcompressed, and they're just getting worse all the time. When we first got digital 5 years ago, the quality was impressive, but as more channels have been squeezed in, it's just getting worse. Magic TV is especially terrible, and it's got to the poitn where I can't stand to watch it any more- you can see the artifacts several feet from the screen, and the whole picture "blocks up" at least once every 5 minutes- something which shouldn't be acceptable. And the new wave of LCD & Palsma screens are showing these artifacts up even more.
I'd disagree with that. There is not enough bandwidth. The channels are overcompressed, and they're just getting worse all the time. When we first got digital 5 years ago, the quality was impressive, but as more channels have been squeezed in, it's just getting worse. Magic TV is especially terrible, and it's got to the poitn where I can't stand to watch it any more- you can see the artifacts several feet from the screen, and the whole picture "blocks up" at least once every 5 minutes- something which shouldn't be acceptable. And the new wave of LCD & Palsma screens are showing these artifacts up even more.
But the broadcasters get what they pay for, if they want a nice uncompressed channel they can have one as long as they stump up the cash. There are spare transponders; the limiting factor is financial.
Coming back to my magazine analogy - some are printed on nice glossy paper, some on crinkly low-grade paper. Some TV stations look gorgeous and some look like sh*t, it's up to them if they want a quality product and it's up to us whether we watch them
Sky may have revolutionised TV from a technological viewpoint. But as an outpost of the mighty News Corporation, the company is in the worst ownership possible. Run by a man whose sole interest is profit rather than providing a quality product.
The sole worst development in the history of television was subscription TV and its dominance of British sport. Because Murdoch has the sporting authorities firmly in his pocket, fans have to pay extra to view events once free to the nation.
Sky digital was never the revolution it promised. Sure it brought TV to those who previously struggled to get a picture, it brought down the barriers of regional TV and pioneered near-on demand broadcasts. But picture quality was sacrificed for picture quantity. Sky's EPG is horrific. Hundreds of samey channels trying to outdo each other with samey programmes. The lack of regulatory muscle allows this to happen unchecked.
To make matters worse, James Murdoch has the cheek to demand MORE deregulation, believing only this will give viewers what they want. We might have 200+ channels, but is there really much choice?
The effects of Sky TV on the terrestrial channels is plain to see, with PSB and regional TV the worst casualty. What could have been a great opportunity for public service broadcasting has instead succumbed to commercial pressures.
Satellite TV needs a kick up the jacksie to restore its self-respect. First, force Murdoch to sell Sky (and his other UK media interests) to British-based owners. Hand over control of the EPG to a co-operative of main British broadcasters. Award broadcasting licenses only if there is a need for the service. And above all, restore the majority of home sporting events to the "crown jewels" list.
Sky may have revolutionised TV from a technological viewpoint. But as an outpost of the mighty News Corporation, the company is in the worst ownership possible. Run by a man whose sole interest is profit rather than providing a quality product.
The sole worst development in the history of television was subscription TV and its dominance of British sport. Because Murdoch has the sporting authorities firmly in his pocket, fans have to pay extra to view events once free to the nation.
Sky digital was never the revolution it promised. Sure it brought TV to those who previously struggled to get a picture, it brought down the barriers of regional TV and pioneered near-on demand broadcasts. But picture quality was sacrificed for picture quantity. Sky's EPG is horrific. Hundreds of samey channels trying to outdo each other with samey programmes. The lack of regulatory muscle allows this to happen unchecked.
To make matters worse, James Murdoch has the cheek to demand MORE deregulation, believing only this will give viewers what they want. We might have 200+ channels, but is there really much choice?
The effects of Sky TV on the terrestrial channels is plain to see, with PSB and regional TV the worst casualty. What could have been a great opportunity for public service broadcasting has instead succumbed to commercial pressures.
Satellite TV needs a kick up the jacksie to restore its self-respect. First, force Murdoch to sell Sky (and his other UK media interests) to British-based owners. Hand over control of the EPG to a co-operative of main British broadcasters. Award broadcasting licenses only if there is a need for the service. And above all, restore the majority of home sporting events to the "crown jewels" list.
Yeah Cricket definitely needs to be back on terrestrial TV, I totally agree with what you are saying.
