Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 
21613 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4430

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 519830 12-Sep-2011 10:32
Send private message

If the prime feed was in HD, it would make sense. But as they are still only SD, it doesnt.




Richard rich.ms



536 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154


  Reply # 520041 12-Sep-2011 15:56
Send private message

graemeh:
speedywiz: FOUR and Prime are also beamed down to us twice.. once in Freeview and once Encrypted.


That makes no sense at all with Sky owning Prime!



richms: If the prime feed was in HD, it would make sense. But as they are still only SD, it doesnt.



It gets worse.  There are actually FOUR Prime feeds being broadcast.  One by Freeview, (@ 12456MHz) and 3 by Sky itself (@ 12707MHz) which I assume must have regional advertising.


DjShadow: Sky will be paying for the transponder TV1 and 2 HD are on, can't seem them offering that for free


...And Freeview are paying for the Transponders that Sky get some channel feeds from.  That was my original point.  Shouldn't it be a case of if Sky use some of the Freeview feeds, Freeview get some Sky feeds in return?  I realise their must be deals in place for all of this but a trade-off like this would seem fair to me... maybe I should ask Freeview... or maybe Sky!


richms: IMO its best to leave it exactly as it is now since they had the decision to launch freeview with the outdated MPEG2 SD service.

If they were to now launch a new service in addition to the low res SD stuff, it would just lead to more confusion among the already confused and mislead general public.

After ASO and another year or 3 then perhaps it would be time to start thinking of a HD sat service, if there isnt already no need for it with hopefully other distribution being viable.



Don't think much confusion is necessary, just gives people more choice which I don't think is a bad thing.  And if the "other distibution" you're refering to is Ultra Fast Broadband, I'd say it's likely the 13% who can't get DVB-T will have even less chance of getting UFB!





1 | 2 | 3 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.