You know, we could just aimlessly fire off unnecessary congratulatory remarks about the 20th birthday of satellite TV in the UK, but instead, we'll use this as a launching point for somewhat of a rant. A score ago, the
ASTRA A1 lifted off in order to eventually provide direct-to-home (DTH) satellite TV service to "small" dishes across Europe. Today, we're simply baffled and appalled by the lack of progress. 20 years later, Americans can tune into
well over 100 linear high-def channels via satellite, yet Europeans are
still wondering if HD is just a figment of someone's imagination. What gives, Europe? Why the
refusal to provide your people with the next level in quality programming? The source content is already out there, and we're sure
DISH Network and
DirecTV would be happy to share contact information if need be. We're happy for your 20 year party and all, but who throws a shindig in 2008 without at least a few dozen high-def stations on tap?
posted Dec 11th 2008 11:19PM
tv_thumbnail.jpg)
our PAL system is far more superior to NTSC, plus we've had widescreen TV for well over 10 years now, HD wasn't a massive leap for us like it was for you, plus the way the money works with networks in the US is completely different to the UK, do you think the US channels would be able to work how they do if they were broadcasting to a fifth of the audience?
you think the advertising money would be the same?
Stop lumping Europe together, they are different countries with different languages, laws and governments.
Here in the UK we have a population of 60 million, no where near what you have in the US, there's not as much money for the networks and therefore they cannot move forward as fast. We have 30 HD channels and that's growing, there's no way the US networks would have put their necks on the line like Sky has to acquire and create that many HD channels with a risk if they had as little money as the UK networks have!
Bloody hell mate! Do you work for Sky or have I just come across the very first Sky Fanboy?
Get a grip will you, Sky were offered and pushed towards going HD/part HD when they changed to Digital on 1st October 1998.....they choose not to take that route because they knew they could sell a standard product for years to come at an inflated price.
As such, with no way of delivering HD content, broadcasters had no reason to produce in HD.
You could argue that its a chicken and egg situation, but you would be wrong. What happened as soon as Sky took the jump (something they did because of the sales of HDTV's were increasing, not because they were bothered about "moving things forward") Yes thats right my friend, broadcasters started producing in H bloody D (HD).
The blame for the UK and Irelands (let us not forget its 99% the same service in ROI) piss poor selection of HD is not that there are only circa 70million people on the two islands, no, its down to Sky milking the customer and not giving a toss (same crappy EPG for the last 10 years is a great example).............and why do they not give a toss? Simple, there is no competition here, Virgin are only now getting their act together (NTL were a joke). FreeView is non HD thus far.
And making the point about not being enough people for the broadcasters is total rubbish, have you seen how much the Premier League gets for their TV rights, the money is up there with any other sport in the world.
By the way if you do work for Sky, please for the love of Homer, sort out your bloody EPG, I am pretty sure I could write a better one at this stage.
Um yeah, that last bit is way too critical. Sky have 29 HD channels and are increasing the count day by day. Freesat, an entirely free satelite service is trialing HD channels and will be rolling them out too.
I'm not so sure the original article was written by an American, to me it seems like someone lamenting the lack of progress and comparing it to the US situation.
"our PAL system is far more superior to NTSC"
Superior to NTSC - yes. It should be - PAL is a newer system, and wasnt concerned with backward compatibility of a substantial existing installed base of then-very expensive TV recievers when it was rolled out.
as for *far more* superior Mmmm, that's really pushing the boat out.
Anyway, our ATSC system is *far more* superior to the PAL system - and of course the NTSC system which it supersedes. It ought to be, it's forty-fifty years or so newer. I get digital 18 *hi-definition channels* over the air using a standard UHF antenna, plus a couple of standard defs (weather channel, old shows etc) . cost to me = $0.00
Who needs a hundred channels anyways. I cancelled my cable subscription 4 years ago.