BBC 2012 - The Olympic Broadcaster

They just don't listen do they - we didn't want Huw Edwards but have been forced into accepting him, and now they throw Trevor Nelson at it too. As usual any complaints are just brushed aside (we're told of the commentary free option) but they completely miss the point that most people actually do want some form of commentary, but it needs to be informed and only at the points in proceedings where it is needed.

And the problem with Huw Edwards doing that is? Who else would you choose?
Trevor Nelson seems a perfectly valid choice this time, just as Carrie Gracie was in Beijing and Kerrin Lee-Gartner was for Vancouver.

I'd say that Hazel Irvine could manage on her own - or with Trevor Nelson - but I can understand why they're using Huw. Don't seem to remember a problem with his commentary being uninformed or 'over commentating' last time? Infact I seem to remember the three of them worked well together, each bringing something different and helping to explain and inform about what I was seeing.

I know Barry Davies is the master of these things but he can't go on forever. If the complaints were justified and numerous enough they'd be paid attention to- posters on internet forums are not representative on the whole viewing public. Who knows, if enough people said there was too much commentary, maybe they'll go for a bit less this time?

'Forced into accepting him' - huh? By that logic you're 'forced into accepting' the commentary on whatever sport or event you watch. For those who do want to watch without commentary the option is there- something that wasn't as recently as Sydney 2000. I'm sure whoever was chosen there would be complaints, just as there would be if there was no commentary, or if they said very little at all.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the vast majority of people think the same.

I'm sorry that you and your family weren't listened to, but there are other people who think Huw Edwards is just fine.

I don't think "we" thought that at all, thanks. And there are obvious reasons for hiring Trevor Nelson because the opening ceremony is not a sport, it is a spectacle, and Nelson will obviously be more adept at talking about the musical aspects of the event, and what it means for East London as a whole, than Barry Davies. If Nelson was a straight replacement for Davies, there may be a point, but he is not. Nelson did the commentary on Michael Jackson's funeral and was sensitive and knowledgable throughout so why wouldn't he do a decent job on this?

Furthermore, you continually complain about non-sports presenters being used on sports programmes but make no comment on sports presenters being used on non-sports programmes, a la Balding, Humphrey, Paul Dickinson and the rest on the Jubilee. And just because they don't cover sport 24/7 it doesn't mean they're not interested in it, Bill Turnbull is an absolutely demented football fan for example, Nelson is a huge football fan as well and famously Brian Walden was renowned as a walking sports encyclopedia.

They've been doing something similar over the last few weeks on Richard Bacon's programme

That is BBC Worlds set at The Ironworks, not BBC Domestic News's set...

So on BBC HD you can press the red button to switch from 3D to 2D - and the 2D is the BBC HD broadcast, not switching to BBC1, so possible that for the Olympics non-3D viewers will be able to do the same for the 3D highlights show.

That is very clever and proves that a separate broadcast on BBC One HD is not necessary.

Pressing red on Sky just brings up the usual options to go into BBCi or the Sport Multiscreen.

It is, because watching half the 3D coverage you're seeing half the HD resoloution. So a separate broadcast is still very much necessary- particularly as 2D coverage has far more cameras. The main 3D camera position isn't good for 2D viewing- its far too low down, you can't see the far baseline.

They wouldn't have put a press red for 2D option on if they weren't considering it an option.

What it does prove is that in the future you can use the same 3D cameras to produce a 2D picture that, although not quite HD, is still better quality than SD, and you can broadcast it on the same channel without needing an extra video stream.

Today is the perfect example where you have one sport relegated to SD because the other needs both channels to be covered in SD, HD and 3D. Had this been tested much earlier we could perhaps have the option of Wimbledon in half-HD or 3D on one channel, and F1 in HD on the other.

In my opinion it's a good compromise for Freeview viewers.

Its not a good compromise! You'd be massively degrading the quality of one of the biggest sporting events of the year for the vast majority of HD viewers for the benefit of a tiny number with 3D capable sets. If anything the 3D coverage of Wimbledon should have been delayed, although that would have taken away part of the BBC trialing 3D, even if it would displease a smaller number of viewers than no HD coverage of the end of qualifying. Although today was a difficult situation with that massive delay in qualifying.