Loss of BBC HD channels on satellite

[RS]

This is off topic since it does not concern get_iplayer or the iPlayer,
so if you are going to be offended please stop reading.

Some of you have said you use satellite so this may be of interest.
Last night my satellite receiver displayed "Tune failed!" whenever I
tried to receive any of the BBC HD channels. The SD channels were still
working.

Today I eventually found the explanation in this article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/7a69712a-5942-4792-af89-99f73c731bbd

To save you reading it from end to end, what it says is that in order to
have one more HD channel on each transponder the forward error
correction (FEC) has been changed.

Unhelpfully it does not say what the change was, but if you compare the
settings in your receiver with what is shown on Lyngsat.com you will see
it has changed from 2/3 to 3/4.

It would have been nice to have had some warning that we were going to
have to retune our receivers. If you follow the link to the Reception
Advice page it says, "Impacted viewers with an internet-connected smart
TV and a sufficient-speed broadband line will still be able to watch all
our channels via BBC iPlayer."

[a***@cityscape.co.uk]

On Thu 18 Oct 2018 at 20:22:12 +0100, RS wrote:

> This is off topic since it does not concern get_iplayer or the iPlayer, so
> if you are going to be offended please stop reading.

Deconstruction: I know that what I am about to post has nothing to do
with get_iplayer but I am going to force you to download it and read it.
Don't complain or get shirty; I will ignore you because I know what is
best for *me*.

I also suspect that many will be offended my temerity but it's for *my*
good, so you will have to like it or lump it. I am sure you will be
understanding of my needs to impose on you; as you would of anyone else
who posts off-topic mails.

--
Brian

[VeniVidiVideo]

On Oct 18, 2018, at 3:43 PM, ***@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu 18 Oct 2018 at 20:22:12 +0100, RS wrote:
>> This is off topic since it does not concern get_iplayer or the iPlayer, so
>> if you are going to be offended please stop reading.
>
> Deconstruction: I know that what I am about to post has nothing to do
> with get_iplayer but I am going to force you to download it and read it.
> Don't complain or get shirty; I will ignore you because I know what is
> best for *me*.
>
> I also suspect that many will be offended my temerity but it's for *my*
> good, so you will have to like it or lump it. I am sure you will be
> understanding of my needs to impose on you; as you would of anyone else
> who posts off-topic mails.

Better deconstruction:

Original poster politely communicates what could be vital information for people who have a shared interest in BBC programming.

Second poster has a stick up his butt.

[a***@cityscape.co.uk]

On Thu 18 Oct 2018 at 15:46:41 -0400, VeniVidiVideo wrote:

> On Oct 18, 2018, at 3:43 PM, ***@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
> > On Thu 18 Oct 2018 at 20:22:12 +0100, RS wrote:
> >> This is off topic since it does not concern get_iplayer or the iPlayer, so
> >> if you are going to be offended please stop reading.
> >
> > Deconstruction: I know that what I am about to post has nothing to do
> > with get_iplayer but I am going to force you to download it and read it.
> > Don't complain or get shirty; I will ignore you because I know what is
> > best for *me*.
> >
> > I also suspect that many will be offended my temerity but it's for *my*
> > good, so you will have to like it or lump it. I am sure you will be
> > understanding of my needs to impose on you; as you would of anyone else
> > who posts off-topic mails.
>
> Better deconstruction:
>
> Original poster politely communicates what could be vital information
> for people who have a shared interest in BBC programming.

So what? On that basis you could post anything here.

> Second poster has a stick up his butt.

Even the OP acknowledeges that ***@lists.infradead.org provides
a clue as to its purpose.

--
Brian.

[Peter S Kirk]

On 18 Oct 2018 at 15:46, VeniVidiVideo VeniVidiVideo
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Better deconstruction:
>
> Original poster politely communicates what could be vital information for people who have a shared interest in BBC
> programming.
>
> Second poster has a stick up his butt.

+1

[Jonathan H]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Peter S Kirk <***@isauk.biz> wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2018 at 15:46, <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Second poster has a stick up his butt.
> +1
+2

[Alan Milewczyk]

On 18/10/2018 21:26, Jonathan H wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Peter S Kirk <***@isauk.biz> wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2018 at 15:46, <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Second poster has a stick up his butt.
>> +1
> +2
>
> _______
+3

Why are some posters so bleedin' anal? I was pleased to hear about this
topic from the OP, as it was the first I knew of the change!

A


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Owen Smith]

I was already aware of the satellite change, I think from the a516digital.com web site. It's a great source of broadcasting news with a technical bent.

However, I thought the original post was short enough, apologetic enough about being OP, and of sufficient potential relevance to readers of this mailing list to be worth posting.

--
Owen Smith <***@cantab.net>
Cambridge, UK

> On 18 Oct 2018, at 21:40, Alan Milewczyk <***@soulman1949.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18/10/2018 21:26, Jonathan H wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Peter S Kirk <***@isauk.biz> wrote:
>>>> On 18 Oct 2018 at 15:46, <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Second poster has a stick up his butt.
>>> +1
>> +2
>>
>> _______
> +3
>
> Why are some posters so bleedin' anal? I was pleased to hear about this topic from the OP, as it was the first I knew of the change!
>
> A
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> get_iplayer mailing list
> ***@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 03:46:41PM -0400, VeniVidiVideo wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2018, at 3:43 PM, ***@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
> > On Thu 18 Oct 2018 at 20:22:12 +0100, RS wrote:
> >> This is off topic since it does not concern get_iplayer or the iPlayer, so
> >> if you are going to be offended please stop reading.
> > Deconstruction: I know that what I am about to post has nothing to do
> > with get_iplayer but I am going to force you to download it and read it.
> > Don't complain or get shirty; I will ignore you because I know what is
> > best for *me*.
> > I also suspect that many will be offended my temerity but it's for *my*
> > good, so you will have to like it or lump it. I am sure you will be
> > understanding of my needs to impose on you; as you would of anyone else
> > who posts off-topic mails.
> Better deconstruction:

> Original poster politely communicates what could be vital information for people who have a shared interest in BBC programming.
>
> Second poster has a stick up his butt.

And is a hypocrite who deliberately posted an off-topic message, FORCING
all of us to download it and read it.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Vegetarian: n: a person who, due to malnutrition caused by
poor lifestyle choices, is eight times more likely to
catch TB than a normal person

[RS]

On 18/10/2018 20:43, ***@cityscape.co.uk wrote:

> Deconstruction: I know that what I am about to post has nothing to do
> with get_iplayer but I am going to force you to download it and read it.

I am not forcing you to do anything. I put my warning as early as
possible in the message to save you unnecessary reading. If you want to
be immune from off topic material you do have the option of going to a
moderated forum.

https://forums.squarepenguin.co.uk/forum-15.html

[a***@cityscape.co.uk]

On Thu 18 Oct 2018 at 20:58:28 +0100, RS wrote:

> On 18/10/2018 20:43, ***@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Deconstruction: I know that what I am about to post has nothing to do
> > with get_iplayer but I am going to force you to download it and read it.
>
> I am not forcing you to do anything. I put my warning as early as possible
> in the message to save you unnecessary reading. If you want to be immune
> from off topic material you do have the option of going to a moderated
> forum.

I do not want a moderated list. One where users are considerate and
stick to the list's purpose is fine by me. Why should I have to move
because one user perverts the list's function for his own ends? And,
in addition, announces that this is his intention..

--
Brian.

[Colin Law]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 21:52, <***@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
> Why should I have to move
> because one user perverts the list's function for his own ends?

In what way did the original user benefit? He was merely informing us
of information in which at least some of us are interested.

Colin

[Brian Potkin]

On Thu 18 Oct 2018 at 21:56:40 +0100, Colin Law wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 21:52, <***@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> > ...
> > Why should I have to move
> > because one user perverts the list's function for his own ends?
>
> In what way did the original user benefit? He was merely informing us
> of information in which at least some of us are interested.

Approbation.

Readers are interested in all sorts of things. Catering for them is not
the purpose of this list.

--
Brian.