Talk:List of DTT channels in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Channel 501

In the 'last day or so' a channel 501 - Engineering Test Programme - has gone live: what is it in connection with? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Channel Changes from may 2009

What channel will Virgin1 +1 be televised on ? Mohammed patel (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This has not been released yet. The closest spot to Virgin is channel 32 (taking into account the Fiver and Five USA changes), however most new channels have appeared from the bottom of the list which is channel 51, but it is still unknown. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 18:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Uniformed page for all channels on all platforms

I am goign ot cross post this on the other platform pages for the uk and ireland, since the problem is useabilty and size and otehr issues.

I porpuse that we create a page similar to list of hd channels in the uk where all platforms informaiton is keep and the channels are sorted by alphbetically, then we have sub pages for example jsut now for A-C, D-F etc. then we can keep everything together and also make it more user friendly.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place at Talk:List of channels on Sky Digital#Uniformed page for all channels on all platforms - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Page change

I think this page should be renamed "List of channels on Digital Terrestrial TV (or Television) (UK). But make it clear what channels are on freeview and what services are premium services. Because there's almost an identical list on Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom, it would make it easier and remove the need to do an update to both lists Mark999 13:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

the list on the other articel was this list but some determine editor do not want to delete even tohugh it break guideliens and i ma not goign to go itnoa logn debate to elete them so they are free to update that list, this one is maintain by the british tv channels project. as for the name it could be renamed that but the service is called freeview and we name the other after there service like sky digital and virgin tv--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the section and this article should be merged, beyond a handful of channels the lists are the same, the EPGs themselves are identical and consist of both FTA and pay-tv services. List of channels on Freeview (UK) was created from that section without discussion, while a discussion to potentially split the channel list out of Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom had started. List of channels on Freeview (UK) does not cover the pay-tv channels so why would the list in Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom be deleted? If anything List of channels on Freeview (UK) would be deleted, if a separate List of channels on Digital Terrestrial Television (UK) was created. An additional column such as Encryption or Package would be all that is needed as well as redirect pages such as List of channels on Freeview (UK) and List of channels on Top Up TV. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no point in having a separate list for 'channels on Freeview' and 'channels on DTT' - one is clearly a subset of the other and as you say, a column to indicate encryption would allow one list to serve both audiences. Bonusballs (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One reason it was split out was the DTT article is large as it is and the list is the most obvious thign to split out, i have to admit i was not aware that the top up tv where not there so i think renaming the lsit to list of channels on DTT would be better. The other reason for the page name the way it is jsut now, if you are a newbie an knew little about this what would you search for? i would presonnaly search for freeview channels since that i teh service name. i agree on the additonal coloums as well. i wish someone would reply to my template ie on sky talk page--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't split out though, Hamhillwill just created a new article by copying and pasting from the other. If a redirect page was at List of channels on Freeview (UK), then the search would basically work, as well as a link being placed in Freeview (UK)#Freeview channels. - 12:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under hte impression it was as i had a arguement with some peopel ove rthere who didnt care the article size was to lagre and the table itself wasnt necessary in the article but better as as serpate aritcle. i agree the redirect will solve the problem but i still think it should be ot it own article and not the dtt article which should have it removed.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That was the suggestion Andrew, merge the DTT section and this article and move to something like List of channels on Digital Terrestrial Television (UK). I did not see any arguments on Talk:Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom but I have now seen that there was a small edit war a few months before this article was created. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

unident

the main problem is that is under the telecommuncatiosn project and this is under british tv project so there is clash and they will resist removing it fromt eh apge so in the end there will eb two pages sicne the editors over there refuse ot rmeove it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at [1], the problem in your case was that both Freeview (UK) and DTT articles contained the same/similar lists. Although you had included pay service onto it, you called it List of Freeview Channels, annoying or confusing editors on the DTT article. Although it's not your fault, there was no further discussion taking place on the article talk pages after your attempt at being bold was rejected. In this case there is some time for discussion, merge notices have been posted on both articles and comments have been forthcoming. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Multipplex

Maybe we should copy the infromation about the multiplex rom teh dtt to this article i mean copy and not remove as it need over there but be useful over here to--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bid tv/Screenshop

I recently added bid tv's timeshare Screenshop into the table but people keep reverting my edits saying Not a seperate channel and Screenshop is not a channel on the EPG as I watch it I know for a fact Screenshop is broadcast in bid tv's downtime between 1.30am and 7.45am. There both on Channel 23 but listed as bid tv.

Which of these would be better:
1

EPG No.	Channel Name	Notes	Owner/parent company	Broadcast hours	Multiplex	Encryption/Package	Format
23	bid tv	Screenshop airs between 01:30-07:45	sit-up Ltd	07:45-01:30	A	Free-to-air	16:9 SDTV

2

EPG No.	Channel Name	Notes	Owner/parent company	Broadcast hours	Multiplex	Encryption/Package	Format
23	bid tv	Screenshop airs between 01:30-07:45	sit-up Ltd	24 hours	A	Free-to-air	16:9 SDTV

3

EPG No.	Channel Name	Notes	Owner/parent company	Broadcast hours	Multiplex	Encryption/Package	Format
23	bid tv	bid tv timeshares with screenshop	sit-up Ltd	07:45-01:30	A	Free-to-air	16:9 SDTV
	Screenshop	Screenshop timeshares with bid tv	sit-up Ltd	01:30-07:45	A	Free-to-air	16:9 SDTV

4

EPG No.	Channel Name	Notes	Owner/parent company	Broadcast hours	Multiplex	Encryption/Package	Format
23	bid tv		sit-up Ltd	07:45-01:30 01:30-07:45 (Screenshop)	A	Free-to-air	16:9 SDTV

Feel free to leave a comment and whichever you prefer I will add to the article. Thanks Paul2387 10:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess the issue is really that lots of channels have hours of their airtime where they show something else - e.g. teleshopping, or gambling, etc. Five and ITV, for example, give most of their overnight hours to stuff like Supercasino but that's not necessarily noteworthy enough to be included in a channel list like this one - nor is there any suggestion that those broadcasts are somehow separate channels. So really, if the "one channel, one number" rule is good enough for the EPG, it's probably good enough for this list too. Screenshop is just something that Bid TV choose to broadcast on their channel. Of the options above, I'd go for number two as it most correctly reflects Bid TV as being a 24 hour service, and just observes the presence of Screenshop in the notes. Bonusballs (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As Bonusballs pointed out, a lot of channels have similar deals in place, are you also proposing that this should be implemented for all of them or is something unique about Screenshop? Screenshop isn't listed as a DTT channel by either Freeview,[2] DMOL[3] or DTG.[4] The Screenshop article says that different programming from Screenshop is broadcast at the same time on three Sit-up channels, which to me suggests that it is only scheduled programming from Screenshop rather than a channel, which would be simulcast. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Channels associated with premium-rate and other paid services

Some channels (all Text I think) are, while technically free, associated with premium-rate telephone lines. I'd suggest they be identified here, either by colour-coding, or by a note in table entries. Pol098 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast times

Broadcast times: As some channels are 24hr but only broadcast proper programmes for a lot less time (like Film 4 which is 11:00-04:00) while the rest is filler/shopping and therefore suggest asterisk '24hr *' to indicate generally shopping etc in the early hours etc. Cyclips (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[user cylips|talk] 15:50 (UTC) 12 July 2010

Listing insignificant programming would fall under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic Digital Terrestrial Television Channel's Lists

It would be good if we could have historic channel lists similar to this, the titles of the articles would be: List of digital terrestrial television channels in XXXX(UK), these would note changes in LCN and any channel launches/closures in that year, and also note any major milestones such as OnDigital changing to ITV Digital and subsequently changing to Freeview. Also in the later years notes on any changes during DSO. Hope everyone likes my idea. Paul2387 11:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

redesigned channel tables

I am proposing to add another column to the channel table it would like the table below:

EPG No.	Channel Name	Programming	Notes	Owner/parent company	Broadcast hours	Multiplex	Encryption/Package	Format
23	bid tv	bid tv - 07:45-01:30 Screenshop - 01:30-07:45		sit-up Ltd	24 hours	A	Free-to-air	16:9 SDTV
37	price drop tv	price drop tv - 08:00-00:00 off air - 00:00-08:00		sit-up Ltd	08:00-00:00	A	Free-to-air	16:9 SDTV

This would then show that bid tv does not show auctions non-stop from 07:45-07;45 every day when in reality it only shows auctions from 07:45-01:30 each day, at the moment with just "24 hours" it looks as though bid tv is on all the time even between 01:30-07:45 when Screenshop is shown(this doesn't seem to be mentioned btw). Paul2387chat 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

sounds a good idea probally should add a note saying time shares with chnanel bla bla--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If Screenshop only appears on bid tv (MOS:TM?) on Freeview then perhaps it is worth noting here. However for one channel it seems like a bit of a waste to add a whole column when it could be added to the Notes column. If Screenshop appears on bid tv on all platforms, it should not be added here as mentioned in the archived discussion. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - there seems to be little point in adding a whole column to the table just so that minor information about a teleshopping window can be added to the listing for one specific channel. What would the 'programming' column say for all the rest of the TV channels? "BBC One 00:00-00:00", "BBC Two 00:00-00:00", and so on? Similarly what use is there in saying that price drop is "off air 00:00-08:00" in the programming column, when the broadcast hours column already states that the channel only transmits between 08:00-00:00 ? If it REALLY needs to be put on the record that bid tv does not transmit live auctions 24/7 then the proper place for that information is the Bid TV article itself, in my opinion. Bonusballs (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

i think there point is it is a freeview only thing that is wha ti got from what there saying if it aint and it all platforma i agree should be on bid tv article--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is completely unnecessary the wikipedia article should not be turned into listings thats what tv listings magazines are for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruth-2013 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Post DSO Mux names/Bit rates of radio stations

Two things I propose we add to the wikipedia article the post DSO mux names so this article can be of use to people in post DSO areas as well.

What does people think on this?

Also I added a column to the radio section of the article because a number of radio stations owned by one company had a drop in bit rate recently when smash hits moved mux, I think this information could prove useful to some people and should be included in the wikipedia article. 1 user took it upon them self to revert this edit but I feel strongly about this. It shows a trend and declining quality of radio stations on freeview as smooth radio took a bit rate cut then a number of the Bauer Radio stations did this.

I would like this edit added back to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruth-2013 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first part, either as a second line in the Multiplex field (a bit messy) or as a separate table demonstrating the change (similar to Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom#The switchover process). As I explained on your talk page, your addition of bitrates is original research among other problems. It does not show any trend as it is only current information and there is no comparison. Most of the television channels are also using statistical multiplexing, so there is no fixed rate. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok I would say it would be better to go with the table method for now, then as DSO completes in all areas the table can be phased out as there will be 1 name for all of the mux then. There should also be a small sentence above the table explaining why its there. I would appreciate if someone else could add the table though as I have not figured out how to create a table from scratch yet on wikipedia. I only know how to edit existing ones. Ruth-2013 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ruth-2013, 3 February 2011

{{edit protected}} In the list of Future channels & events we need a section created for march.

The can the following be added

Fiver will be rebranded as 5* on channel 30

Source is here: http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/international/usa/rebranded-fiver-to-air-warner-comedies/5023183.article

Ruth-2013 (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.. Please discuss any changes to the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Littledumpy34, 3 February 2011

{{edit protected}} let me start by saying this is stupid why do we have to go around a middle man. plus can you add channel one to the channels removed for 2011 . it creased broadcasting on the 1 /02/ 2011 , this channel was taken over by challenge

Littledumpy34 (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit should not be done. Channel one does not belong in the tables as its fully ceased broadcasting did you miss the text above the tables by any chance that says: These are channels that have been removed from digital terrestrial television. This does not include rebranded channels or channels that have ceased broadcasting.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

The tables are only for channels removed for this platform not channels that have been removed from every platform because of closure. Channels that changed its name don't go in there either.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

The protection of the article is not stupid because you seem to be unable to discuss these changes and resolve differences of opinion on the talk page. Please do not use {{editprotected}} until there is consensus on this page for the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Might it not be desirable to include rebranded channels and channels that have ceased broadcasting? They could be in a separate section in chronological order. From the viewpoint of someone seeing what the situation is in Freeview, closed channels have gone just as much as those still transmitting elsewhere.
(Later) perhaps not; I think there was a "list of Freeview channels" which has been merged into this general digital list. Is there a (brief) list specialising in Freeview? There should be, maybe together with Ruth-2013's Freeview multiplexes without LCN. Pol098 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

New table.

I am proposing we add a table to this articles which would list channels that are broadcasting on the freeview multiplexes without LCN.

This is usually channels that are due to be removed and the table may be empty a lot but it would be good to have this on the article when they are there.

There are currently 2 channels on MUX C without LCN.

Sky text in pre DSO areas TV news ( this moved to mux D and they have not removed the old mux c version yet and it is broadcasting without LCN)

This table does not have to be huge and I would be happy to edit this table as and when required. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC))

Agreed. Maybe also add channels without service names or LCNs but that can still be picked up by some receivers. 86.174.238.247 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC) EDIT: Oops, forgot to log in: Muzer (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mislabelled channels

I've just tried to add what certain channels actually broadcast (on Big Deal and Filth) in the notes section and been pointed to an old discussion on why it was reverted. While I agree with that discussion, I believe this is different. On that they were trying to add Screenshop to bid tv's notes section - I'm sure everyone will agree that the main channel there is bid tv, just as the main channel on 5USA/5* is those, rather than the Gems TV/TJC they show. However, with Big Deal and Filth, those channels actually no longer exist - new services have sprung up but the service name has remained the same in both cases. Nobody would say that Big Deal broadcasts on LCN32 or that Filth broadcasts on whichever LCN that is, because it's simply not true. So basically what I'm proposing is to write what channels are broadcast in the notes section if, and only if, the service name shows something that doesn't actually broadcast on that at all. To do otherwise would be incredibly misleading, IMHO. Thoughts? 86.174.238.247 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC) EDIT: Oops, forgot to log in: Muzer (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that there is some difference between the Bid TV/Screenshop example and Big Deal or Filth. I disagree that their schedules should be added or that the channels have completely closed. On Sky, Elite TV (965) and Filth (921) are separate channels. Big Deal and Filth are merely acting as access channels now, similar to Information TV and Open Access, airing blocks of content from other companies, rather than their own original productions. Anything notable could be added in the channel's article or the "micro-channel's" article, which for example Gems TV does. Adding schedules is against Wikipedia policy (see WP:NOTTVGUIDE). - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It suggests that the channel owners are gaming the LCN allocations system (see [[5]]) which indicates that changing the channel's name may cause them to treat the service as a new channel and shift it off to a much less favourable channel number. (As happened to Virgin 1 on Ch20, now Challenge on Ch46.) Big Deal's space on Freeview is far more valuable to them as 'evenings on channel 32' than it would be as 'evenings on channel 48' so it looks like they're doing as little to rock the boat as possible. However on the main point, totally agree with Jasmeet, whatever the channel may actually broadcast, only what it is called in the EPG is sufficiently verifiable to pass muster. Any personal observations of what the channel really shows would, unfortunately, be original research - although I agree that it's a shame that this can't easily be noted - and in any case potentially it's an arrangement which could change from week to week, as indeed does seem to have already been the case with the multiple occupancies of Ch32. Bonusballs (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

24 hours

BBC 2 closes down ad shows pages from ceefax 3 times a week and both S4C and ITV 1 close down every night so this needs changing. C. 22468 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

ITV 1 to my knowledge doesn't close at night because they show usually show Jeremy Kyle and nightscreen? I don't know about the others Fatty2k10 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you take the view that "Pages From Ceefax" is a closedown and not a programme, then you'd need to say the same for Nightscreen. In which case you'd be headed down the ludicrous path of trying to chart a channel's ever-changing broadcast hours, as the times and lengths of these 'closedowns' vary. Since the channels do normally both broadcast for up to 24 hours a day, it seems fairly sensible to say so rather than trying to chase down every single detailed change, which in any case would fall foul of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Where the times are fixed and a channel physically goes off air at 1am every night, returning at exactly 6am, for example, that's a different matter, but if a channel has no fixed startup and closedown time and is usually on-air all day, then "24 hours" seems a quite reasonable description. Bonusballs (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Other category

Anyone else thing this should stay? This can be used for channels that broadcast without LCN after a multiplex movie and for other things such as the current rubbish challenge placeholder on 795 (Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC))

Yeah, I think that would be a good plan. I made up the "Other" name on the spot- I'm wondering if it should be called something else like "Placeholder channels" or something. It could also be used for pre-launch channels (if they are testing without LCN, though this is now much rarer than it used to be). Thoughts? Muzer (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your comments fully. It could also be used for channels that are broadcasting no picture/caption but with LCN like pick tv+1 and it would keep the mains tables neat and only for fully active channels. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

One problem with listing channels without an LCN is that they probably wouldn't be published by reliable sources and so fall under original research. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how that would apply because anyone could see channels without lcn on there equipment. This section is smiler to channels testing on the sky list, in my opinion if this is wp:or then so is that because testing channels on sky are not published by good sources and one of the main sources that gets used a lot on the sky testing list allows users to submit its data so not exactly reliable. I would be happy to keep this section up to date, I am sure Muzer would as well. Even if we dont use it for channels without LCN which I think would be a huge mistake then other can still be used for channels that broadcast a caption and LCN or mistake channels like lcn 795(Ruth-2013 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

While it doesn't need to have a reference added, it needs to at least be attributable. I would agree that KingOfSat isn't the best source but it does have some editorial oversight as user submissions are not directly added (like on Wikipedia). Lyngsat is similar to KingOfSat and is used by SES Astra's onastra.com, which for example contains information on Dave HD. Eutelsat also has its own lists. This is probably closer to Virgin Media's testing section where the test names and numbers were viewable through a menu but not actually published by reliable sources. I don't agree that channels with an LCN should be moved away from their category and as this is only one or two channels at a time I don't think it would really have any significant effect on the readability of the article. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There are sites that document things like this - you just have to look hard enough. Ray Cathode's site is my personal favourite, there's also Dee Tee Tee (though this is quite slow at updating nowadays and definitely covers less than it used to in its day), and obviously quite a few forums. Some of the adult channels in this respect are less well-documented than channels testing off the EPG in the past - ignoring the fact that the DMOL and Freeview websites are often VERY wrong (the latter more than the former), it's often quite difficult to figure out exactly what broadcasts on which channel. I'm pretty sure there are a few more as well but they simply aren't springing to mind at the moment. Hell, I could start a blog about the platform if it would help add attributability (the only reason I haven't is because Ray Cathode's site more than fulfils my needs, so I see no reason to reinvent the wheel). I do, however, agree with you in that channels shouldn't be moved out of their section - I only added the section because, well, it needed to go somewhere (it is, after all, on the EPG) - people might come to this page wondering what happened to their channel - they'll want to find it in the correct order, rather than looking at the end of the list. 86.174.236.167 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC) - Muzer not logged in.

Blogs, forums and personal websites are self-published and largely not acceptable as sources. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen blogs used as sources on other pages in the past (when there are a lot of true things but ones that are completely undocumented, eg the internal workings of a games console). Also, I fail to see the substantial difference between Kingofsat or Lyngsat and the sites I listed. 86.174.236.167 (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I still think the other section should be used for channels broadcasting without LCN and any EPG anomaly that may occur. Any freeview box IMO is a suitable source because they can be seen by any standard freeview box. However we could consider hiding the section for now after the 795 channel is gone, and have further discussion on these issues first. I feel there is a way to do this that will please everyone, maybe put a description in bold at the top of the table explaining its use? (Ruth-2013 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC))

Blogs are considered largely unacceptable as sources by Wikipedia policy, there are a few exceptions to the rule, which the console example may or may not fall into Muzer. If you consider Lyngsat to be self-published, their work in the satellite field has been published by a reliable third-party (SES Astra) and so may be considered reliable itself for that reason. Neither Ray or Leonardo's work has been as far as I know. Ruth, you would be relying solely on your own observations so I think that it would be original research. You could ask for opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard but you certainly wouldn't have full UK coverage from any one location. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think another good point is that how do we know that a channel that has just appeared at 28.2°E, say, is testing off-EPG for Sky? Surely assuming that it is testing off-EPG "for Sky" anyway is more than original research - it's just making things up? I'm just saying that I think there is definitely a double-standard here. --Muzer (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I try to only list channels which are already in the future events section but I'm aware that the two listed ITV timeshifts aren't. If you want to discuss changes to that page, you should really do it there. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed them since they've been there for months. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blue Kiss TV closure?

Apparently according to the list of channels on Sky article it appears Blue Kiss TV will be let go on 13 October 2011. Will this affect Freeview too? Is Daystar going to expand its hours to start at 04:00 and end at 08:00? 109.152.106.70 (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they broadcast the same programming, there is no indication that it will close on Freeview as far as I know. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Manchester

Whats the reason for so many manchester only channels? Stupidstudent (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

After AfD - the way forward

After this articles for deletion (AfD) debate based on the concerns around WP:NOTDIR as a business directory or promotional tool for businesses and with excessive information contained and related within, I am encouraging debate as an impartial editor on what should be and not included within this list, as per guidance and related debates elsewhere, to hopefully prevent a potential second nomination in the future. --tgheretford (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it shows relevant and mainly technical information I wouldn't call it a promotional tool for business. Knowing what multiplex what channel is on is very useful from a technical point of view. Mark999 (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just made a comment on Talk:List of free-to-air channels at 28°E, which is related to this discussion. However, to add a bit more comment related to this article, the two issues with this article is channel numbers and upcoming channels. For upcoming channels, this is a difficult matter and I don't know how this can be kept in a suitable format - if it is possible, perhaps prose rather than a list may be an option. On the channel numbers, as per my comment on the other talk, the channel numbers are not relating specific to one provider, as they relate to three, Top Up TV, Freeview and YouView. Therefore, their inclusion does not appear to promote a platform in my view. However, unlike the other article, which has differing numbers and therefore less like an EPG, these numbers are common and more like an EPG. It is a difficult one, but I hope this helps a bit. Adamiow (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would go with the reverse argument. We keep EPG numbers here because they are co-ordinated and common amongst all providers using Terrestrial broadcasts as part of their services. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I will say I have issues with whether the future channels section is encyclopedic. At the very least it has the appearance of not being encyclopedic. Items such as "A fifth HD channel" and "A BT sports channel may launch" sound so speculative they are stretching crystal ball gazing to the limit. The latter speaks for itself. In the case of the former, if the 5th HD channel is so speculative that a name cannot be attached to it, how on Earth can we say it is going to launch at all? Pit-yacker (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It would likely conflict with WP:CRYSTAL. If it ain't sourced, I'd remove it in the first instance. --tgheretford (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If all we know about the fifth HD channel is that, well, it'll be "a fifth HD channel", I think that we can apply a WP:HAMMER to that subsection (but that does not provide an excuse to whack everything else). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

With the BT Sports Channel we know it will launch will it be on DTT? Well we don't know, BT could replace Sky Sports with it, it could be an IPTV channel over BT Vision and Youview. That's why the words "may launch" is used. Mark999 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

...and that's why I am saying it shouldnt be there. As far as I can tell it's pure crystal gazing. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"May", "Could", "Might" is against both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL, so you're right to delete it. doktorb _words^deeds 16:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The reference given for the BT channel states "BT promises its service will be available on Freeview".[6] Broadcast says "BT plans to make a dedicated Premier League channel available across a wide network of platforms, including Freeview and YouView," and "Free-to-air homes will be able to enter an unlock code to access the subscription channel, which will be broadcast via DTV as well as broadband."[7] I'd agree that the HD one is speculative now following its summer usage and Channel 5 HD's failure to take it up twice. The rest seem fine. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Interactive section

With the departure of Top Up TV, and BBC 303 due to close at some time in the near future, we will end up with only one (two, if 302 remains a placeholder) channels in the Interactive section of the channel list. especially in the former, is it worthwhile to keep the Interactive section in this case? If not, where could 301 move to on the article? Eladkse (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Could be merged with text services? Adamiow (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Availability of relay transmitters

I have changed the COM muxes availability as they ARE available on SOME relay transmitters (Like the one I am receiving in Bristol) Mark999 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

LCNs

I strongly disagree with removal of so called 'EPG numbers' from this article. WP:NOTTVGUIDE does not disallow such numbers. The policy in fact disallows program guides themselves - i.e. schedules, which this article is not. This purpose of this article is to list the channels broadcast on the universal UK DTT system, plus relevant information about them specific to the platform. The LCN numbers (for a more accurate term) are centrally assigned, and do not differ depending on DTT provider, and hence satisfy this condition.

EPG numbers exist on channel article infoboxes - the same information (especially on such a platform specific article) should exist here as well. The LCNs in this article also provide a logical way of ordering the channel listing of the article.

Since both removals were made at the same time by Helmboy, I also link to a similar discussion at Talk:List of digital television channels in Australia. I insist a consensus is reached before such a drastic change is made to either article. Eladkse (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What's your view on the consensus that was reached to avoid the sat lists deletion on Talk:List of free-to-air channels at 28°E#Removing Sky and Freesat EPG info. As with certain Aussie editors you appear to want WP to endorse a directory of commercial numbering so users can have a remote controller cheat sheet for their channel locked Freeview receivers. Unlike analog ITU channel numbers those numbers have not encyclopedic value beside promoting a commercial service.Helmboy (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally am struggling to connect all the dots with the AfD discussions that are included with your link, but I certainly don't see a definitive consensus from the discussion on that talk page.

However, I can point to a very similar discussion from from this article's talk page featuring two of the same editors. In both articles, they do seem to share the opinion (that is also my own) that since the DTT platform LCNs are provider neutral, they do not does not promote any particular commercial service. I'm certainly not saying that this was a consensus either - the discussion progressed no further. However, it is a significant difference to List of free-to-air channels at 28°E, and hence why I believe the LCNs should stay. Eladkse (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You are yet to state the informational and encyclopedic value of digital channel numbering apart from the previously mentioned 'cheat sheet" to help promote Freeview to users that have locked-down receivers. The numbering is no different than the way Pay TV providers commercially sort and lock-down their provided channels which is different to the Freeview order. The point is List of free-to-air channels at 28 would have been deleted if the number weren't removed. I am wondering why this article shouldn't be deleted if the numbering stays. The only channels of informational value are ITU frequency channel allocation numbers.Helmboy (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please define what you exactly mean by a 'locked-down receiver'? Also, again I must point out that DTT is entirely separate from the Freeview platform. The terms are not interchangeable. Freeview may utilise the DTT service, they do not determine the LCNs. Youview, for example, is another platform which uses the DTT service, and hence the LCNs - but is not associated with Freeview in any way.

This article was already proposed for deletion this time last year in regard to WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and there was a clear consensus to keep. The arguments for and against were very similar to ones we are discussing at the moment, and mostly hinged on the distinction between articles being platform specific listings or country specific (i.e platform neutral) listings. This AfD didn't really etch onto whether or not LCNs should be used, but I think it's clear that this article is different from most of it's type. If, for example, the article was 'List of channels on Freeview', it would have likely been an entirely different issue.Eladkse (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

locked-down means users can't change the channel order to suit their preference as can be done on generic DVB receivers and analog channels. As for who defines the order, the point is the order is clearly setup the same way as pay tv group channels for commercial benefit ie, by content theme or class. Especially with the addition of extra pay tv channels on the service.Helmboy (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As another point for consideration, in terms of article maintenance, is that it is almost certain that if LCNs are removed they will be readded at a later date by another users who probably won't read this discussion. I don't mean this by way of spite, as I would certainly accept a decision either way if there is consensus, but I certainly would not be actively reverting back - as I would end up having to constantly do so.Eladkse (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In which case a article editor note would be added advising WP:NOTDIR.Helmboy (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion under WP:3O, as we're getting nowhere with our discussion, and we are both repeating the same arguments. Eladkse (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

HD before SD version?

• It is impossible on the EPG for BBC News and Al Jazeera to have their high-definition versions before the standard. Could those be part of the reshuffle on 3 September? 78.143.168.59 (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article only. It is not a page for discussion of DTT in general. In future, please seek out an alternative website.

To answer your question, however: it is indeed possible for high-definiton varients to appear before their SD counterparts in EPGs, and this is indeed how it will be after 3 September. See here for the LCN changes direct from DigitalUK. If HD channels were to move, they would have also been listed on this page to inform viewers. Eladkse (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

New channel list

It probably doesn't matter, but editors have jumped the gun by a few hours - the channels will be moving later this afternoon.--86.186.134.202 (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Really weird

It's completely weird recently why IPs (not me), keep adding Tiny Pop. There's no source.--78.143.168.59 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Classic FM

Classic FM is available on channel 731[8]. Please add to list.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added that and LBC to the list which was also added today. Bbb2007 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Radio stations - format

Prompted by this revision by an anonymous editor, which I reverted in favour of opening this discussion.

A large majority of the tables in this article contain a column entitled 'Format' describing some very 'simple' specifications of each channel (aspect ratio and resolution). While there are more in-depth technical differences, these cannot be easily described due to fluctuations in values. Further, their complexity mean they are probably not within the scope of this article.

As I understand it, this column has been deliberately omitted from the Radio section because in the same vain of 'simple' specifications, all that can be said is that it is audio. Like the TV channels, there are technical differences, but we cannot include them for the same reasons.

The only information as far as I believe could potentially be included is the number of channels (i.e. Mono or Stereo). However, if we were to include this information for radio stations, we would probably need to include it for TV channels too.

Does anyone have a view on whether or not we should include any format information for radio stations? Eladkse (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

NI and Greater Manchester channels

Given these no longer clash in LCNs, I feel these separate sections in General Entertainment are somewhat unnecessary. Per my point in the above discussion, multiplexes are noted, so it's no different to COM4-8 or LTV in that regard. Typically, we only note regional/national variation in the notes section if a channel is available in smaller region than the mux it resides (e.g. BBC Alba, S4C exist on nationwide muxes, but are only available in certain areas, so have a note pointing this out. Being on the NI or GI muxes is enough without note. I'm going to merge them and see if anyone complains. Eladkse (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

721

BBC Radio Cumbria is now on 721 in the NW and NE of England. Don't want to break the table by adding it myself! ▲RedScrees (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Added, along with the rest of today's additions. Eladkse (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Future events section

I'll be the first to admit policing this section has been rather slack recently. There have been additions to this section based solely on the existence of Ofcom licences, which often do not result in an actual channel on the DTT network. I've removed these additions until firmer announcements about intentions to launch on DTT are made. Exception to this are future Local TV channels which, by virtue of winning the local licence for the relevant area, automatically signal intention to launch on DTT.

Regarding the recent edits for the Community Channel, I note the following from WP:CRYSTAL:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is [...] almost certain to take place.

The future of Community Channel is clearly uncertain. It may close, it may not. But it is not a definite intention either way. Thus, I feel it fails the above statement and should not be included until its future is certain. Eladkse (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Availability column

All but five channels listed in the article are 'free-to-air'. It seems a waste of valuable horizontal space to have this listed in a dedicated column. As such I have reformatted the article to remove this column, and move the restricted availability of the five remaining channels to the comments. If anyone thinks otherwise, I'm happy to discuss. Eladkse (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

SD channels on HD Mux

Any better ideas for marking them, there are a couple in other sections. If they are on HD mux, then Freeview HD is required to receive them. Ace of Risk (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've personally held the view that the article should not delve too deeply into how to receive a particular channel, and have removed such comments if added. The opening paragraphs details how each multiplex is broadcast (technical and regional), and each channel entry notes which muliplex that channel is on, so it's relatively simple to put two and two together. Eladkse (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just added a section with, by coincidence, exactly the same heading: I hadn't noticed this section. I made the change to the article by adding a dagger to the format column of such channels: "16:9 SDTV†", but it was reverted (see later section). It would seem that this merits discussion; to keep it in a single place I would suggest appending it to the later comment, rather than here. So far we have two suggestions that these channels should be flagged, and one disagreeing. Best wished Pol098 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

SD channels on HD mux

I would suggest flagging SDTV channels that are broadcast on an HDTV mux; these channels, despite being in SD, cannot be received on equipment without an HD tuner. I made this change (see the change here) but it was reverted with the summary "No need to specially denote these SD channels - the mux they are on is listed, and the opening paragraph clearly explains where and how they are emitted" (difference here). In the article without this clarification all SDTV channels, whether on an SDTV or HDTV mux, are identified identically as having format "16:9 SDTV". I added a dagger † to flag SDTV on HDTV mux channels: "16:9 SDTV†". The added dagger † is explained in a note below the table "†Channels broadcast on an HD multiplex in standard definition require an HD tuner". This fact is only mentioned in the body of the article because I added it; otherwise it would be down to the reader to divine that the reason for the inability was in the sentence (trimmed here) The COM7 and COM8 transports carry both commercial HDTV and commercial standard definition services.

The reason to do this: Wikipedia should as far as possible be useful (without becoming an instruction manual). Without this clarification a reader looking up a television service would be informed that it was broadcast in standard definition, but not that an HD tuner was required, leading to mystification. The only reason I can see not to add this is to remove a single "†" character from a few entries, an infinitesimal advantage to compensate a significant loss of information. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"In the article without this clarification all SDTV channels, whether on an SDTV or HDTV mux, are identified identically as having format "16:9 SDTV"." The Format and H.222 Transport columns contains different information for each channel - Format defines the picture format of the channel, while H.222 Transport defines how the channel is emitted (which transport it is carried on). If we were to include such additional denotions as per your edit, I would argue that they were better suited for the later column.

However, the reason I chose to revert some of your edits relates to a larger problem with the DTT platform. As you probably know, the transport multiplexes vary in availability - both geographically and technologically. In the same vain that you argue that we should individually denote the specifics of receiving these SD channels carried on DVB-T2 muxes (the technological limitations), it can be argued further that we should be individually specifying the limited availability geographically of many of the muxes. This argument very quickly adds a lot of unnecessary bulk to the article.

In response to previous discussions about denoting geographical limitations - I have argued this:

Limitations on receiving a specific channel should only be denoted if it differs from the transport on which it is carried.

For example, we note on a channel level the limitations of certain PSB channels (BBC Alba, S4C) as these are carried on multiplexes that are otherwise received in other areas which do not have these channels. In contrast, we do not note the limitations on a channel level on channels available in Manchester and Northern Ireland, as the multiplexes they are carried on are only available in these areas.

To carry the example further, it is my belief that we should not denote on a channel level the requirement to have DVB-T2 equipment to receive channels residing on a multiplex which is only receivable using this equipment anyway. As I stated in my reversion summary - the availability (both geographically and technologically) of each multiplex is explained in the opening section (this used to be a nice table, but someone rewrote it to prose a while back to make it more encyclopedic). You will note that I did not revert your clarification in this section on receiving SD channels on COM7/8 - this is indeed a useful point to clarify in the article.

In regards to your final point - this is a fairly technical article, with a lot of focus on the specifications of the channels and multiplexes. I feel there are much more informative places such as the Freeview website offering advice (including the type of box) for those simply seeking to receive channels, and this is not the purpose this article should serve. Eladkse (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hours

Are we putting the slot hours or broadcast hours? Channels like movies4men have a 24 hour slot, but only broadcast 06:00 - 04:00 with two hours of teleshopping. Mark999 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Put simply - it's slot hours. However, to elaborate further, the two are one and the same. The channel is still broadcasting, even if it is teleshopping. The article isn't about the content of each channel, so we don't need to make such distinctions. 11:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Movies4Men +1

Regarding these edits, the last of which was by Scaz (talk · contribs), is there any evidence that Movies4Men +1 went national? It's not in my current EPG (yes, I have retuned recently) which has all the other national timeshifted channels that are listed. It's also not mentioned in the South/South West edition of the Radio Times - and I've checked all the issues from November 2015, also one every month since then. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, Movies4Men +1 has not yet gone national and, as shown in the tables, is still on the GImux transport, which is only available in Greater Manchester. Scaz (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes

Not found the date, but BT Showcase on 59 is discontinued (data placeholder at the moment) moved to HD only. Does it go as removed yet? Ace of Risk (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Currently, it's 'ceased broadcasting' on 59 - which I've now updated on the page. The channel data is still being broadcast at the moment, so doesn't get removed yet. When it does, it shouldn't be added to the channels removed section, as the channel is still broadcasting (just in HD instead!) Eladkse (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of DTT channels in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150104194712/http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/local/award-decisions/ to http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/local/award-decisions/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No "Shopping channels" category?

Why are all the shopping channels listed under "General Entertainment"? Is this Wikipedia page commercially sponsored or something? Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The genres used in the article correspond to those used by DigitalUK when managing the channel listings for DTT. Channels are listed numerically in these genres, as shown on page 13 of their LCN Policy document. The addition of any additional genres in the article would be arbitrary, and subject to differing opinions by editors. Eladkse (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, that's very informative. If we were talking about channels such as "reality" or "documentary" channels, then I would definitely agree that it would be impossible to separate them into their own category, as not all such channels fit neatly into such a category, thus any distinction would be arbitrary. But when it comes to shopping channels, there is a very clear distinction which is obvious to all people: that these channels do not contain any regular programmes. This distinction is pretty black and white and clear-cut.

There is no Wikipedia policy against dividing information into useful and valid groupings. Every single sub-heading on Wikipedia could be said to be an 'arbitary' division of information. Therefore I maintain that it is reasonable to put the shopping channels in their own category. If we were to be completely strict about using DigitalUK's categories, then there should be no "Local TV variations" category and all those channels should be listed under "General Entertainment". But they have been quite rightly set apart on the grounds of common sense. I believe the exact same grounds apply to the shopping channels. Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason local TV and radio variations have been split into a sub-sections of General Entertainment and Radio for ease of understanding, because they are large groups of channels which share a small number of LCNs. These sub-sections are complimented by additional text explaining how they are distributed on DTT.

You assert that there is a distinction between a 'shopping' channel and 'normal' channel in that they do not contain any regular programmes. I disagree - on the contrary, these channels do carry regular programs and programming strands. They just happen to be teleshopping. Further, a great number of 'normal' channels carry teleshopping at certain points of the day; so per your above, not all such channels fit neatly into such a category and any distinction is arbitrary.

This article is primarily a technical one, with a lot of focus on the specifications of the channels and multiplexes on DTT. The article isn't about the content of each channel, so we don't need to make distinctions based on the content. I see no distinction between the two from a technical point of view. The sections in the article are used because they are what used by the operator of DTT to determine the numerical LCN placements - a technical determination. Eladkse (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your points, particularly the last one. If we regard this article as being more of a technical one, from the perspective of broadcasting, then it makes sense. Whereas I was looking at the article more from the side of the actual entertainment and content, from the perspective of the end user. There are obviously a lot more Wikipedia readers who will fall into the latter category, though which approach to the article is "correct" I could not speculate.

I don't wish to challenge this any further, but I will close by stating that I believe the majority of viewers would agree that the question of "what constitutes a shopping channel" is extremely clear-cut, and can be very distinctly defined as those channels which show only commercial presentations. Grand Dizzy (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The Gas Station by VOD365

Does anybody know about this channel? Did this streamed motoring channel ever got launched? Cannot see it on the List of former TV channels in the United Kingdom page.

VOD365 said The Gas Station should have come onto Freeview about a year ago but nothing has been heard about it since, as VOD365 seem to be focusing on a new service for kids called Yaaas! at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.169.123 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"Transport"

Could this be defined, please. Also, is it synonymous (exactly or nearly so) with "multiplex"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.85.117 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Channelbox"

Where has the Channelbox article gone? It looks like it has been removed by an American!!! Please put the article back...if you need to write it here's all the info you might need... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.170.204 (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi 81.154.170.204, The article has been moved to Draft:Channelbox - In all fairness the article needed major improvements so as such it was either Draft or WP:AFD (and the result for that would've been delete for sure), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

September 2020 updates

There were several changes to the Freeview Service in September 2020, not just to accommodate the addition of Sky Arts. One not covered by the article is the addition of Service 555 Accessible TV Guide on PSB2 which appears on my EPG but doesn't seem to be active. (Also, Service 675 ADULT Party left my EPG some time ago and has either been removed from Freeview completely or has been moved from COM4 to a regional transmitter, and Service 795 Arqiva Test Channel placeholder on COM4 is not mentioned.) I am sure there must be good reasons for these apparent omissions but I don't know what they are. I have reinstated the Text services 251 to 253 which had been removed.LenF54 (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

TCC (not to be confused with The Children’s Channel)

Freeview announced its closure recently.

Originally uploaded: 13:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC) OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)