DA
Maybe you should contact this guy...
http://www.facebook.com/christopher.rowe/posts/10152844444745384
He sounds legit.
So basically - no reply at all!
Maybe you should contact this guy...
http://www.facebook.com/christopher.rowe/posts/10152844444745384
He sounds legit.
HC
The EBU feed(s) were downlinked at TVC, then fibred to the BBC Studios and Post operation at Elstree Film studios (I think via BBC Elstree)
The Elstree Film studios gallery was where Scott/Ana or Graham's commentary came back to, graphics were added, BBC Three VTs played in, the BBC Three in-vision feed (which was also downlinked at TVC) was added, jury and televoting co-ordinated from etc. Scott was at Elstree for the Saturday voting.
The resulting mixed feed was fibred back to TVC and then passed to Red Bee for BBC One/BBC Three playout.
The Red Button team were also at BBC Elstree.
Hey Noggin, thanks for your reply. I'd forgotten about S&PP up at Elstree. I take it the commentary sound came down from Malmo via an ISDN circuit and then laid over the clean feed signal distributed from the site by SVT/EBU?
The EBU feed(s) were downlinked at TVC, then fibred to the BBC Studios and Post operation at Elstree Film studios (I think via BBC Elstree)
The Elstree Film studios gallery was where Scott/Ana or Graham's commentary came back to, graphics were added, BBC Three VTs played in, the BBC Three in-vision feed (which was also downlinked at TVC) was added, jury and televoting co-ordinated from etc. Scott was at Elstree for the Saturday voting.
The resulting mixed feed was fibred back to TVC and then passed to Red Bee for BBC One/BBC Three playout.
The Red Button team were also at BBC Elstree.
Hey Noggin, thanks for your reply. I'd forgotten about S&PP up at Elstree. I take it the commentary sound came down from Malmo via an ISDN circuit and then laid over the clean feed signal distributed from the site by SVT/EBU?
BR
Do we think the "audience log" is the BBC term for the bin? It's like the recent red button review - they do actually acknowledge complaints about the service being cut to one stream but offer absolutely no response to it and it's basically "tough" - we made the decision and that's it.
Back to Eurovision and don't really get how they can use the licence funded argument to justify spending additional licence fee money rather than just showing what is in front of them.
Back to Eurovision and don't really get how they can use the licence funded argument to justify spending additional licence fee money rather than just showing what is in front of them.
JO
Brekkie, don't be silly. The BBC would argue they are adding value to the programme by replacing the interval with relevant interviews and other build up to the big night. Now it's subjective as to whether it does or not of course, but that's the case with anything the BBC does.
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
The response to steddenm, was completely fair in my opinion. It basically it means, the view has been taken on board, but they feel what they are providing best serves the audience. But I'm sure if a certain level of complaint was reached there would be a serious review of how they show the semis.
So, what else could they say? Should they hold some massive review into programming for every complaint received?
Do we think the "audience log" is the BBC term for the bin? It's like the recent red button review - they do actually acknowledge complaints about the service being cut to one stream but offer absolutely no response to it and it's basically "tough" - we made the decision and that's it.
Back to Eurovision and don't really get how they can use the licence funded argument to justify spending additional licence fee money rather than just showing what is in front of them.
Back to Eurovision and don't really get how they can use the licence funded argument to justify spending additional licence fee money rather than just showing what is in front of them.
Brekkie, don't be silly. The BBC would argue they are adding value to the programme by replacing the interval with relevant interviews and other build up to the big night. Now it's subjective as to whether it does or not of course, but that's the case with anything the BBC does.
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
The response to steddenm, was completely fair in my opinion. It basically it means, the view has been taken on board, but they feel what they are providing best serves the audience. But I'm sure if a certain level of complaint was reached there would be a serious review of how they show the semis.
So, what else could they say? Should they hold some massive review into programming for every complaint received?
GM
Brekkie, don't be silly. The BBC would argue they are adding value to the programme by replacing the interval with relevant interviews and other build up to the big night. Now it's subjective as to whether it does or not of course, but that's the case with anything the BBC does.
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
The response to steddenm, was completely fair in my opinion. It basically it means, the view has been taken on board, but they feel what they are providing best serves the audience. But I'm sure if a certain level of complaint was reached there would be a serious review of how they show the semis.
So, what else could they say? Should they hold some massive review into programming for every complaint received?
No but their response does seem a bit scripted and a bit predictable. It's just a typical PR response, and if you were to complain to any company, you are guaranteed to get the same kind of generic response.
They answer questions with questions and beat about the bush instead of getting to the heart of the issue. In my experience of complaint handling, if you want a direct and approachable answer you email into the Executive Office of the company and you are guaranteed a personal reply or email.
Do we think the "audience log" is the BBC term for the bin? It's like the recent red button review - they do actually acknowledge complaints about the service being cut to one stream but offer absolutely no response to it and it's basically "tough" - we made the decision and that's it.
Back to Eurovision and don't really get how they can use the licence funded argument to justify spending additional licence fee money rather than just showing what is in front of them.
Back to Eurovision and don't really get how they can use the licence funded argument to justify spending additional licence fee money rather than just showing what is in front of them.
Brekkie, don't be silly. The BBC would argue they are adding value to the programme by replacing the interval with relevant interviews and other build up to the big night. Now it's subjective as to whether it does or not of course, but that's the case with anything the BBC does.
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
The response to steddenm, was completely fair in my opinion. It basically it means, the view has been taken on board, but they feel what they are providing best serves the audience. But I'm sure if a certain level of complaint was reached there would be a serious review of how they show the semis.
So, what else could they say? Should they hold some massive review into programming for every complaint received?
No but their response does seem a bit scripted and a bit predictable. It's just a typical PR response, and if you were to complain to any company, you are guaranteed to get the same kind of generic response.
They answer questions with questions and beat about the bush instead of getting to the heart of the issue. In my experience of complaint handling, if you want a direct and approachable answer you email into the Executive Office of the company and you are guaranteed a personal reply or email.
TT
If the BBC want to show behind-the-scenes material as a build-up to the Grand Final, why not put an extra separate programme for that on BBC Three Wednesday or Friday evening, and just show the semi-finals in full (including interval acts) without opt-outs?
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
If the BBC want to show behind-the-scenes material as a build-up to the Grand Final, why not put an extra separate programme for that on BBC Three Wednesday or Friday evening, and just show the semi-finals in full (including interval acts) without opt-outs?
BA
Brekkie, don't be silly. The BBC would argue they are adding value to the programme by replacing the interval with relevant interviews and other build up to the big night. Now it's subjective as to whether it does or not of course, but that's the case with anything the BBC does.
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
The response to steddenm, was completely fair in my opinion. It basically it means, the view has been taken on board, but they feel what they are providing best serves the audience. But I'm sure if a certain level of complaint was reached there would be a serious review of how they show the semis.
So, what else could they say? Should they hold some massive review into programming for every complaint received?
No but their response does seem a bit scripted and a bit predictable. It's just a typical PR response, and if you were to complain to any company, you are guaranteed to get the same kind of generic response.
They answer questions with questions and beat about the bush instead of getting to the heart of the issue. In my experience of complaint handling, if you want a direct and approachable answer you email into the Executive Office of the company and you are guaranteed a personal reply or email.
So he should go directly to the Director-General of the BBC? OK...
The reason the response will sound scripted is because it's in the written medium. Any person with any real experience in complaining will know that complaining in person or on the phone is much more likely to get results, and that things in writing are only for confirmation.
In terms of a broadcaster, this is different. They are providing a service to thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions - one complaint does not mean much on that scale of things. The system, however, has to be scalable to where hundreds of complaints can be responded to. They don't want to be wasting time carving out tailored literary masterpieces to every complainant.
EDIT:
If the BBC want to show behind-the-scenes material as a build-up to the Grand Final, why not put an extra separate programme for that on BBC Three Wednesday or Friday evening, and just show the semi-finals in full (including interval acts) without opt-outs?
Because, for many people, the semi-finals are going to be the only time they're going to want to watch B3. People are hardly going to search it out for such a thinly-spread programme.
Do we think the "audience log" is the BBC term for the bin? It's like the recent red button review - they do actually acknowledge complaints about the service being cut to one stream but offer absolutely no response to it and it's basically "tough" - we made the decision and that's it.
Back to Eurovision and don't really get how they can use the licence funded argument to justify spending additional licence fee money rather than just showing what is in front of them.
Back to Eurovision and don't really get how they can use the licence funded argument to justify spending additional licence fee money rather than just showing what is in front of them.
Brekkie, don't be silly. The BBC would argue they are adding value to the programme by replacing the interval with relevant interviews and other build up to the big night. Now it's subjective as to whether it does or not of course, but that's the case with anything the BBC does.
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
The response to steddenm, was completely fair in my opinion. It basically it means, the view has been taken on board, but they feel what they are providing best serves the audience. But I'm sure if a certain level of complaint was reached there would be a serious review of how they show the semis.
So, what else could they say? Should they hold some massive review into programming for every complaint received?
No but their response does seem a bit scripted and a bit predictable. It's just a typical PR response, and if you were to complain to any company, you are guaranteed to get the same kind of generic response.
They answer questions with questions and beat about the bush instead of getting to the heart of the issue. In my experience of complaint handling, if you want a direct and approachable answer you email into the Executive Office of the company and you are guaranteed a personal reply or email.
So he should go directly to the Director-General of the BBC? OK...
The reason the response will sound scripted is because it's in the written medium. Any person with any real experience in complaining will know that complaining in person or on the phone is much more likely to get results, and that things in writing are only for confirmation.
In terms of a broadcaster, this is different. They are providing a service to thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions - one complaint does not mean much on that scale of things. The system, however, has to be scalable to where hundreds of complaints can be responded to. They don't want to be wasting time carving out tailored literary masterpieces to every complainant.
EDIT:
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
If the BBC want to show behind-the-scenes material as a build-up to the Grand Final, why not put an extra separate programme for that on BBC Three Wednesday or Friday evening, and just show the semi-finals in full (including interval acts) without opt-outs?
Because, for many people, the semi-finals are going to be the only time they're going to want to watch B3. People are hardly going to search it out for such a thinly-spread programme.
BR
If the BBC want to show behind-the-scenes material as a build-up to the Grand Final, why not put an extra separate programme for that on BBC Three Wednesday or Friday evening, and just show the semi-finals in full (including interval acts) without opt-outs?
Has somebody hacked your account?
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
If the BBC want to show behind-the-scenes material as a build-up to the Grand Final, why not put an extra separate programme for that on BBC Three Wednesday or Friday evening, and just show the semi-finals in full (including interval acts) without opt-outs?
Has somebody hacked your account?
TT
To the best of my knowledge, no. At least, I hope no-one has hacked my account. The reply to Jon's post:
... is something that I myself (Tumble Tower, aka other names on other forums) posted here earlier this evening. What makes you ask if someone has hacked my account?
Has somebody hacked your account?
To the best of my knowledge, no. At least, I hope no-one has hacked my account. The reply to Jon's post:
If the BBC want to show behind-the-scenes material as a build-up to the Grand Final, why not put an extra separate programme for that on BBC Three Wednesday or Friday evening, and just show the semi-finals in full (including interval acts) without opt-outs?
... is something that I myself (Tumble Tower, aka other names on other forums) posted here earlier this evening. What makes you ask if someone has hacked my account?
NG
Hey Noggin, thanks for your reply. I'd forgotten about S&PP up at Elstree. I take it the commentary sound came down from Malmo via an ISDN circuit and then laid over the clean feed signal distributed from the site by SVT/EBU?
Yes - as every year. Multilateral feed from EBU downlinked with clean Stereo and Dolby E 5.1 audio. Commentary comes back ISDN (with backups via alternate routes) and is mixed together in London (Elstree this year, TVC previous years). Multiple versions are broadcast by the EBU (MPEG2 and H264 4:2:2 HD this year) and are downlinked by the BBC for redundancy. Graphics - phone number prefix etc. - are added in London gallery as well (host just provides the country number on the recaps)
For BBC Three the stand-up position comes as a unilateral feed into the London gallery and is mixed into the multilateral feed as required.
noggin
Founding member
Hey Noggin, thanks for your reply. I'd forgotten about S&PP up at Elstree. I take it the commentary sound came down from Malmo via an ISDN circuit and then laid over the clean feed signal distributed from the site by SVT/EBU?
Yes - as every year. Multilateral feed from EBU downlinked with clean Stereo and Dolby E 5.1 audio. Commentary comes back ISDN (with backups via alternate routes) and is mixed together in London (Elstree this year, TVC previous years). Multiple versions are broadcast by the EBU (MPEG2 and H264 4:2:2 HD this year) and are downlinked by the BBC for redundancy. Graphics - phone number prefix etc. - are added in London gallery as well (host just provides the country number on the recaps)
For BBC Three the stand-up position comes as a unilateral feed into the London gallery and is mixed into the multilateral feed as required.
NG
If the BBC want to show behind-the-scenes material as a build-up to the Grand Final, why not put an extra separate programme for that on BBC Three Wednesday or Friday evening, and just show the semi-finals in full (including interval acts) without opt-outs?
It's more a case that the BBC probably feel the need to tailor the semi-finals to a BBC Three audience, to try and make them stick out a bit less, not that they feel the need to do behind the scenes stuff for the sake of it. They aren't a natural fit for the BBC Three audience after all - but have no other real channel that they can broadcast them on. They don't do badly ratings wise for BBC Three though.
This year the SVT shows were all largely excellent (with some questionable taste and decency for a native English-speaking audience), but it is worth remembering how awful the break-fillers and interval acts have been in the semi-finals in years gone by. Russia in 2009 anyone? Belgrade in 2008? (Even their grand final interval act was worthy of opting-out of really wasn't it?)
noggin
Founding member
If you think about it the semi basically incorporate the BBC Three/Choice build up shows in the weeks ahead of the contest. I think there is a strong argument for the BBC also providing a clean feed for the purist on either the red button or online.
If the BBC want to show behind-the-scenes material as a build-up to the Grand Final, why not put an extra separate programme for that on BBC Three Wednesday or Friday evening, and just show the semi-finals in full (including interval acts) without opt-outs?
It's more a case that the BBC probably feel the need to tailor the semi-finals to a BBC Three audience, to try and make them stick out a bit less, not that they feel the need to do behind the scenes stuff for the sake of it. They aren't a natural fit for the BBC Three audience after all - but have no other real channel that they can broadcast them on. They don't do badly ratings wise for BBC Three though.
This year the SVT shows were all largely excellent (with some questionable taste and decency for a native English-speaking audience), but it is worth remembering how awful the break-fillers and interval acts have been in the semi-finals in years gone by. Russia in 2009 anyone? Belgrade in 2008? (Even their grand final interval act was worthy of opting-out of really wasn't it?)