BSkyB To Launch 3D TV Service In 2010

TheSync writes "The Guardian reports that BSkyB will launch Europe's first 3D TV service in 2010. You will need the Sky+ HD set-top box, and a '3D ready' TV set (glasses-based stereoscopic system such as LCD shutter glasses or polarized glasses). Note that the first 3D TV service was from Nippon BS Broadcasting BS11 for use with Hyundai 3D sets."

Comments

Pfft.

[thatkid_2002]

My TV is 3d already. It's kind of a rectangular prism style shape with a curvy CRT screen.

Re:Pfft.

[fractoid]

Pfft get a 2D TV like all us cool kids have. Nerd. Everyone knows flatscreens are cooler.

Re:Pfft.

[CarpetShark]

Mine's an ancient device called 'Outside'.

Re:Pfft.

[Inda]

I only have one eye you insensitive clods!

sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to agree with the willfail tag, alas, this is BSkyB, the UK's favourite waste of money, murdoch is far, far more popular than the BBC with a certain, very large, braindead section of the british public.

Re:sheeple

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

I'd like to agree with the willfail tag, alas, this is BSkyB, the UK's favourite waste of money, murdoch is far, far more popular than the BBC with a certain, very large, braindead section of the british public.

To add to this, I'll agree with the 'braindead' part of your post. I can't see why people would praise BSkyB over the BBC, the BBC at least provide the service we're paying them for. Here, I bought a new Sky+ HD box and an HD subscription, planning to replace an old Sky+ box with a shiny new HD box and replace a regular Sky box downstairs with the old Sky+ box, giving both our upstairs and downstairs TV the ability to pause and record programs. Sky seemed absolutely fine with all this, so far so good.

First screw up now. We should've received two new Sky cards, one for the new HD box and another for the old Sky+ box. We didn't. No problem the installers said, we'll just use the card from the regular old Sky box, put it in the HD box, call Sky so they can transfer the old card over, and we'd have full Sky HD in about four hours! We didn't. All we got were the free-to-air/view HD channels and the regular SD package channels, but none of the HD package channels, nor would the box operate as a Sky+ box, giving error messages telling us to upgrade our subscription whenever we tried to use such functions.

What follows now is a month and no less than five calls to Sky, where we were told (and I quote) getting the box actually working "could be a week, could be a month". Despite this, Sky wasted no time in debiting my account for the full amount, including the extra £10 for the HD channels I'm not getting. We would fight for a refund, except that we tried that once when Sky mistakenly debited us for an installation that never actually happened and only ended up wasting money on phone calls only for Sky to tell us they couldn't give us our money back but they could 'credit our account' for the amount, meaning they wouldn't charge us for our subscription for a while, but Sky simply don't do refunds (I phrase it as Sky getting confused, after all we give them money, how could it possibly work the other way around?).

As I type this, it has now been one month since I got Sky+ HD, and there is still no indication that Sky are actually going to activate the functions I'm paying them extra for. The lack of Sky+ is especially ridiculous as Sky actually changed their system so anyone with a Sky+ or Sky+ HD box (which I have) and a subscription to at least one channel package (we have four) automatically gets Sky+ without needing an additional subscription! So why do I still hit pause only to get:

Live Pause is not available
Call 08705 800800
to upgrade your Sky+ subscription

All Sky can tell us is that they're "having some problems" and will send an email to get some form filled out so they can actually provide us with the service as promised. We'd move television providers except that Sky has no competition here. Freeview isn't available due to the local transmitter not being upgraded and doesn't provide a fraction of the channels anyway. Cable is simply not available here in any way, shape, or form. So unlike with gas, electricity, broadband, or phone, there is no competition and we can't move. If this is somehow supposed to be better than the TV licence, I'm not seeing it.

Re:sheeple

[pisto_grih]

Get freesat.

Re:sheeple

[teh kurisu]

If you're paying by direct debit, try talking to your bank about it. Under the direct debit agreement you're entitled to a full and immediate refund from the bank if a payment has been taken improperly. This means that you'll get your money back first, and questions will be asked later.

It's at the discretion of the bank of course, and if your contract with Sky doesn't actually guarantee you'll get anything for your money then you may struggle to persuade the bank, but it's always worth a shot.

Re:sheeple

[teh kurisu]

I have Freesat. I was in the same situation as the GP up until the switchover - I was on a relay that wasn't transmitting Freeview at all (and analogue reception was quite poor), and there was no cable provider in the area. The flat I was living in had a satellite dish attached by a previous occupant, and so I picked up a Freesat HD box as soon as they became available.

Now that the switchover has happened, I receive what my local MP is referring to as 'Freeview Lite' - I only receive the 'public service' channels provided by the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (and Channel 5 as well I suspect, although the Freeview website is telling me otherwise).

The thing is, Freesat doesn't offer much more than that. The channels that I get on Freeview are also the only ones really worth watching on Freesat. Most other channels are garbage. I would only really recommend Freesat under the following circumstances:

• If you absolutely must have the one-and-a-half HD channels (BBC HD and the half-a-channel ITV HD).
• If it's your only digital TV option that doesn't require a subscription, and you can't wait for your switchover date.
• If you're a Scottish Gaelic speaker and want to watch BBC ALBA, which is only available via satellite.
• If you want to receive local programming from another part of the UK. A friend of mine in London is considering Freesat so that he can watch Scottish programming.
• If you live in the Republic of Ireland, where DTT isn't nearly as well developed (rebranded boxes are available under the name Sat4Free).

There are other options beside Sky and Virgin - Tiscali and BT IPTV services are available in some areas. I'm currently using Tiscali alongside Freesat, and it provides as good a range of channels as I want along with a lot of on-demand content. It's not the most reliable service in the world however, and I'm not sure I want to recommend them over Sky just yet.

Repeating Fad

[Tablizer]

The 3D fad comes and goes and has multiple times since the 50's. Until it is both cheap and comfortable, it will not last.
       

Re:Repeating Fad

[dgatwood]

No, no, no. In the video space, porn makes or breaks new technology.... Until the porn girls look sufficiently attractive in 3D high definition, the medium won't go anywhere. Not making a value judgment here, just describing reality.

Re:Repeating Fad

[Culture20]

Get ready. Many HDTVs can already do stereoscopic, and the glasses are comfortable (unless you dislike the blink rate).

Re:Repeating Fad

[dgatwood]

True enough, but with 3D, you have to factor in a lot of costs beyond the equipment cost itself. For example, you can get away with crappy sets if your camera always points in only a couple of directions and has no depth. That background showing a field behind the window suddenly looks like crap in 3D.

Keep giving the people what they don't want

[ZackSchil]

HDTV gave people more detail (something they actually wanted) while at the same time freeing up a great deal of radio bandwidth in the switch to digital.

No one wants 3D TV, so why is it being developed? Isn't market testing supposed to weed out dumb ideas like this? Hell, 3D barely maintains its status as a novelty in movie theaters, and there it's backed by huge ad campaigns and popular content. It can't even gain traction in the technology-obsessed, immersion-seeking gamer community!

3D TV makes watching TV more complex and expensive without giving back much of value. The television is too casual a medium to complicate with shutter glasses. Until the free-standing 3D projector is invented, television should remain a 2D affair.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[rschwa]

Hell, 3D barely maintains its status as a novelty in movie theaters,

actually, 3D is one of the only reasons to bother going to the theater vs. watching it from the comfort of my living room for a tenth the price. Some of the new 3D movies aren't too bad.
 

3D TV makes watching TV more complex and expensive without giving back much of value. The television is too casual a medium to complicate with shutter glasses. Until the free-standing 3D projector is invented, television should remain a 2D affair.

I agree with this.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[takev]

Seems they closed shop according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D-plus-depth

Hell, it even detracts from artistic integrity.

[plasmacutter]

imagine a cult classic like akira or green legend ran butchered by 3d conversion..

anime is by its nature a 2d medium, it's part of its artistic flavor... i dont WANT to see it in 3d.