As subject seen on a forum.
Anyone confirm and can say why?
Regards
David

On 16/12/2011 13:19, David wrote:
As subject seen on a forum.
Anyone confirm and can say why?

Yes, I received an EMail from Ofcom this morning

Quote:-

Ofcom has been notified by Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited that it does
not wish to proceed with its application for the fifth HD capacity slot
on Digital Terrestrial TV at the present time.

Subject to any future Ofcom decision to re-advertise the slot, the
capacity will remain with the Multiplex operator BBC Free-to-View
Limited and can be used by it for BBC services or services provided by a
third party via a commercial arrangement.

End Quote



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

In article , David wrote:

Anyone confirm and can say why?

Because it wouldn't increase Channel 5's profits in any way?

How many people can there be who would watch Channel 5 if it was in
HD on Freeview but not otherwise?

-- Richard

Oh dear I am gutted... not.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
On 16/12/2011 13:19, David wrote:
As subject seen on a forum.
Anyone confirm and can say why?

Yes, I received an EMail from Ofcom this morning

Quote:-

Ofcom has been notified by Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited that it does not
wish to proceed with its application for the fifth HD capacity slot on
Digital Terrestrial TV at the present time.

Subject to any future Ofcom decision to re-advertise the slot, the
capacity will remain with the Multiplex operator BBC Free-to-View Limited
and can be used by it for BBC services or services provided by a third
party via a commercial arrangement.

End Quote



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On 16/12/2011 13:19, David wrote:
As subject seen on a forum.
Anyone confirm and can say why?
Regards
David

This is probably good news.

There's nothing worth watching on 5.

Well they seem to have forgotten about minorities in general judging by the
half hearted number of shows with audio description since the take over.
They seem to prefer to just trundle on and presumably eventually **** off so
many minorities nobody will be left watching their stuff.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
In article , David
wrote:

Anyone confirm and can say why?

Because it wouldn't increase Channel 5's profits in any way?

How many people can there be who would watch Channel 5 if it was in
HD on Freeview but not otherwise?

-- Richard

On 16/12/2011 13:39, Richard Tobin wrote:
In , wrote:

Anyone confirm and can say why?

Because it wouldn't increase Channel 5's profits in any way?

How many people can there be who would watch Channel 5 if it was in
HD on Freeview but not otherwise?

I'd rather have Dave HD.

In article ,
Silk wrote:
There's nothing worth watching on 5.

True. You'll have to wait 'till they poach Strictly as they did Big
Brother.

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Mark Carver wrote:
On 16/12/2011 13:19, David wrote:
As subject seen on a forum.
Anyone confirm and can say why?

Yes, I received an EMail from Ofcom this morning

I guess they figure that's the best way to spread the word!

Bill

On 16/12/2011 14:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
There's nothing worth watching on 5.

True. You'll have to wait 'till they poach Strictly as they did Big
Brother.

I would say Big Brother was poached - more dumped.