BBC HD - Campaign to Improve Picture Quality

Given the problems the world and UK has at the moment, petitioning the UK Prime Minister to request the BBC improves the picture quality (PQ) of its High Definition channel - BBC HD - ought to rank as a fairly low priority.

But that's what I found myself doing this week, creating an e-petition on the Official Site of the Prime Minister's Office. You can sign this at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BBCHDPQ/

Though it ought to be unimportant in the vast scheme of things, it is however interesting to note that over 500 people had taken the trouble to sign the petition in the first day - making it already the 3rd most signed petition in its category of "Information and Communications", moving it into the top 200 of all petitions, and the most signed of recent new petitions.

Clearly then I am not alone in noticing the degredation in the BBC HD PQ.


It wasn't always the case - the Beijing Olympics, Planet Earth, Jools Holland, were exemplars of HD PQ when HDTV first launch in the UK. However, in August 2009 the BBC made changes to its encoders that compress the picture.

Almost immediately, many people noticed degredation in the BBC HD PQ and started to raise the issue on various forums - such as various threads at avforums and digital spy - and on the BBC's own HDTV blog. You can also vote in the BBC HD Picture Quality Campaign on avforums

Unfortunately (for the BBC), the responses made by BBC executives in their HDTV blog have only served to infuriate viewers further by seeming to suggest it is all in their imagination and that the technical changes made by the BBC to the transmissions have had no impact on the PQ.

However, many viewers like myself had no idea any technical changes had been made to the encoders - all I knew was that the PQ no longer seemed up to the standard set in the early days of BBC HD. The evidence was purely what I saw with my eyes. It wasn't until I started looking on the internet to see if anyone else was noticing this that I found out about the changes they had made. So I certainly wasn't imagining it, and I doubt others were either. Nor was I assuming that because the bit rate was a lower number, then lower must equal worse - because I had no idea that the bit rates had changed. All I could see was a poorer picture, and only found out what seemed to be the source of the problems later.

As early adoptors and advocates of HDTV, you would think this is the last audience you would want to alienate if you were the BBC. Rather than enthusiactically recommending BBC HD to all their friends as advocates would be prone to do, they will be suggesting they consider alternatives instead - "wait for the Blu-ray box set", "subscribe to Sky HD if you want the best HD", are some of the things I have found myself saying of late.

Though my petition asks for the BBC to restore the bitrates to the levels before the August changes, ultimately, I don't care what the bitrate or compression is, but

1. I do want the HD PQ improved - if that requires an increase in bitrate, so be it
2. I don't want the HD PQ reduced to a lowest common denominator, set by the most limited platform (e.g. freeview), so that all HD platforms are 'equal' for some unexplainable reason
3. and most importantly, I would just like the BBC to engage in a proper debate about the subject rather than basically telling anyone who complains that they are imagining it.

I get the impression that point 2 is the driver for these changes, which the BBC have so far via their blog responses done nothing to change. As Freeview HD which launches soon has a lower available bandwidth than Freesat HD, the BBC is artificially constraining the bandwidth of Freesat HD so that Freeview HD does not suffer in comparison.

If so, I find that perplexing. Did, or does the BBC constrain FM and DAB audio quality so that AM transmissions don't suffer in comparison? Did the BBC constrain BBC colour transmissions so that B&W programmes didn't suffer in comparison? I think not. There will always be differences between the different mediums available. So why not use them to their maximum capability, rather than reducing them to their lowest common denominator?

I would certainly like the BBC to respond to this point by always using the maximum bandwith available for each medium as my petition requests.

There was a time when BBC meant broadcast quality par excellance. They consistently bought many innovations to UK broadcasting over the years that have led to improved picture and audio quality. BBC HD seemed the next logic step in that, even though by the time of its introduction, the BBC were lagging in global terms. And for a time, as expressed earlier, it was. But today it seems the BBC are more concerned with quantity rather than quality. They would rather squeeze more and more low-PQ channels into the available bandwidth in a flawed attempt to compete with the hundreds of channels available today, rather than focus on a few high-PQ channels that have that "must see" factor.

My main complaint though is that I cannot vote with my feet. Even though I am unhappy about the BBC HD PQ, thanks to the licence fee I still have to pay for it whether I watch it or not. And the BBC's attitude comes across like they know that very well...

If Sky reduced it's HD quality, I could simply stop subscribing. What is my recourse with the BBC, other than to complain as loudly and directly as possible?