At least we do seem to getting nearer the end of Long Wave though still
a few years off from the sound of this.
On 26/05/2022 17:28, MB wrote:
At least we do seem to getting nearer the end of Long Wave though
still a few years off from the sound of this.
It's to stop the Luftwaffe from using it to bomb London.
It's to stop the Luftwaffe from using it to bomb London.
Just goes to show what idiots run things these days - especially the BBC.
They took BBC3 off air and moved it to on-line only.
Then they brought BBC3 back on air.
Now they are going to shift BBC4 and CBBC to on-line only.
On 26/05/2022 15:49, Woody wrote:
Just goes to show what idiots run things these days - especially the BBC.
They took BBC3 off air and moved it to on-line only.
Then they brought BBC3 back on air.
Now they are going to shift BBC4 and CBBC to on-line only.
Not yet though, not for a few more years.
Goodness know what else (unrelated to broadcasting) will have happened
by then
On Thu 26/05/2022 17:56, Mark Carver wrote:
On 26/05/2022 15:49, Woody wrote:
Just goes to show what idiots run things these days - especially the
BBC.
They took BBC3 off air and moved it to on-line only.
Then they brought BBC3 back on air.
Now they are going to shift BBC4 and CBBC to on-line only.
Not yet though, not for a few more years.
Goodness know what else (unrelated to broadcasting) will have
happened by then
Er Mark, I think you should look at the BBC web site news page. It
announces the changes today.
On Thu, 26 May 2022 17:40:51 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
It's to stop the Luftwaffe from using it to bomb London.
But what about our nuclear subs? Aren't they supposed to press the big
red button if 198kHz goes off air?
Quote:- "Plans to stop broadcasting smaller linear channels, such as
CBBC and BBC Four and Radio 4 Extra, after the next few years;
Top tip. Don't just read the headline
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/plan-to-deliver-a-digital-first-bbc
On 26/05/2022 18:59, Woody wrote:
Er Mark, I think you should look at the BBC web site news page. It
announces the changes today.
BBC 4 is not moving on line today, the press release from the BBC says
this:-
Quote:- "Plans to stop broadcasting smaller linear channels, such as
CBBC and BBC Four and Radio 4 Extra, after the next few years;
Top tip. Don't just read the headline
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/plan-to-deliver-a-digital-first-bbc
On Thu 26/05/2022 17:40, Max Demian wrote:
On 26/05/2022 17:28, MB wrote:
At least we do seem to getting nearer the end of Long Wave though
still a few years off from the sound of this.
It's to stop the Luftwaffe from using it to bomb London.
But what about the nuclear subs listening for the Today prog??
Radio 4 has only been on LW since 1978; the Longwave transmitter was >previously used by Radio 2.That vision has a certain ironic appeal!
So during the height of the Cold War, are we supposed to believe
that our nuclear subs checked for the presence of Terry Wogan playing pop
and easy listening music?0
I suspect that, in reality, the story was an urban myth spread by the
BBC's PR teams.
They have to find ways to ram home the idea that they are providing a
vital service, because we are all being forced to pay for what is,
at the end of the day, just another media organisation.
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:jf9tpjF18ohU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2022 18:59, Woody wrote:
Er Mark, I think you should look at the BBC web site news page. It
announces the changes today.
BBC 4 is not moving on line today, the press release from the BBC says
this:-
Quote:- "Plans to stop broadcasting smaller linear channels, such as
CBBC and BBC Four and Radio 4 Extra, after the next few years;
Top tip. Don't just read the headline
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/plan-to-deliver-a-digital-first-bbc
Is this not an old and established BBC trick, when faced with government funding cuts?
By loudly threatening to cull the more high profile BBC services in their entirety, rather than just clearing out the 'filler content' and tripe
(of which there is lots in every corner of the organisation), they aim to trigger people's emotions and elicit a kneejerk mass backlash against
the cuts.
BBC cronies throughout the mainstream media then fill newspapers with fawning, long-winded articles, telling us how winderful these services
are, and how grateful we should all be to to have them.
It's worked in the past, but I get the feeling that the British public in 2022 have more than 'had it up to here' with the BBC.
I'd already heard talk of plans to close the R4 LW and R5 MW services long before now, however, so perhaps they are just taking existing plans and
using them for dramatic effect.
Having just read Tim Davie’s speech, I’m wondering if the drive to online >(iPlayer and Sounds) is to provide a means of charging subscriptions. Rump >service still free to air broadcast, extra stuff online via a subscription.
On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Having just read Tim DavieÂ’s speech, IÂ’m wondering if the drive to online >> (iPlayer and Sounds) is to provide a means of charging subscriptions. Rump >> service still free to air broadcast, extra stuff online via a subscription.
That's what many have been suggesting for some time as the only viable
way for the BBC to face the future. This should be *instead of* the
licence fee, not *as well as* the licence, of course. Then the BBC
would have to survive by producing material that people were willing
to pay for, just like everyone else in the business.
Rod.
Radio 4 has only been on LW since 1978; the Longwave transmitter was previously used by Radio 2.
So during the height of the Cold War, are we supposed to believe
that our nuclear subs checked for the presence of Terry Wogan playing pop
and easy listening music?🤡
I suspect that, in reality, the story was an urban myth spread by the
BBC's PR teams.
They have to find ways to ram home the idea that they are providing a
vital service, because we are all being forced to pay for what is,
at the end of the day, just another media organisation.
I'd already heard talk of plans to close the R4 LW and R5 MW services long before now, however, so perhaps they are just taking existing plans and
using them for dramatic effect.
There will always be a free to air rump service. The politicians
need the BBC to get their message over to us plebs.
On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Having just read Tim Davie’s speech, I’m wondering if the drive to online >>(iPlayer and Sounds) is to provide a means of charging subscriptions. Rump >>service still free to air broadcast, extra stuff online via a subscription.
That's what many have been suggesting for some time as the only viable
way for the BBC to face the future. This should be *instead of* the
licence fee, not *as well as* the licence, of course. Then the BBC
would have to survive by producing material that people were willing
to pay for, just like everyone else in the business.
Rod.
On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Having just read Tim Davie's speech, I'm wondering if the drive to online >>(iPlayer and Sounds) is to provide a means of charging subscriptions. Rump >>service still free to air broadcast, extra stuff online via a subscription.
That's what many have been suggesting for some time as the only viable
way for the BBC to face the future. This should be *instead of* the
licence fee, not *as well as* the licence, of course. Then the BBC
would have to survive by producing material that people were willing
to pay for, just like everyone else in the business.
I bet the Royal Navy regret ever mentioning the boomers checking Radio 4 Long Wave because it has been misunderstood and often deliberately distorted.
I presume the actual instruction was that if they could not make contact with Northwood by normal means then they should try other methods and
try to establish if they could find a reason why they could not make
contact which would probably involve checking a range of things
including broadcast transmissions.
It should be noted also, that the infrastructure required to add
conditional access to Freeview is already in place; every Freeview TV
has a CAM interface on the rear (typically a card slot) to facilitate
access to encrypted services.
"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:t6ob6q$mno$1@dont-email.me...
On Thu 26/05/2022 17:40, Max Demian wrote:
On 26/05/2022 17:28, MB wrote:
At least we do seem to getting nearer the end of Long Wave though
still a few years off from the sound of this.
It's to stop the Luftwaffe from using it to bomb London.
But what about the nuclear subs listening for the Today prog??
Radio 4 has only been on LW since 1978; the Longwave transmitter was previously used by Radio 2.
So during the height of the Cold War, are we supposed to believe
that our nuclear subs checked for the presence of Terry Wogan playing pop
and easy listening music??
I suspect that, in reality, the story was an urban myth spread by the
BBC's PR teams.
They have to find ways to ram home the idea that they are providing a
vital service, because we are all being forced to pay for what is,
at the end of the day, just another media organisation.
On 28/05/2022 13:54, Alexander wrote:
It should be noted also, that the infrastructure required to add
conditional access to Freeview is already in place; every Freeview TV
has a CAM interface on the rear (typically a card slot) to facilitate
access to encrypted services.
Sure my Freeview has no card access slot, there might have been
provision to add a board when it was made but little chance of the board still being available.
There has never been any attempt to hide plans to close Radio 4 Long
Wave and Medium Wave service. Both are very expensive to operate and
little used with alternatives available.
Just been a powerful lobby wanting coverage of the most boring "sport"
known to man. At least we no longer seem to get the claims that Medium
Wave sounded better because it was a "warmer" sound.
...a submarine would need to be at shallow depth in order to receive it, although craft at lower depths can deploy an underwater 'buoy' antenna.^^^^^
I believe there are no longer any spare final power amplifier valves
for Droitwich LW Tx and no replacements are being made. When the
current PA valves die, so will the LW service.
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:jnj39hhn6d6nt3qs3mdiej6vg61nagtnpa@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Having just read Tim Davie's speech, I'm wondering if the drive to online >>> (iPlayer and Sounds) is to provide a means of charging subscriptions. Rump >>> service still free to air broadcast, extra stuff online via a subscription. >>That's what many have been suggesting for some time as the only viable
way for the BBC to face the future. This should be *instead of* the
licence fee, not *as well as* the licence, of course. Then the BBC
would have to survive by producing material that people were willing
to pay for, just like everyone else in the business.
It should be noted also, that the infrastructure required to add
conditional access to Freeview is already in place; every Freeview TV
has a CAM interface on the rear (typically a card slot) to facilitate
access to encrypted services.
It should be noted also, that the infrastructure required to add
conditional access to Freeview is already in place; every Freeview TV
has a CAM interface on the rear (typically a card slot) to facilitate
access to encrypted services.
The BBC continues to openly lie about this fact, with slogans such as
"You can't stop Freeview!" being bandied about on its broadcasts.
It's true that Freeview set-top-boxes and Freeview recorders lack the
CAM interface, but these would continue to receive the free-to-air,
non-BBC services without issue.
I would think that a frequency of 198KHz is far too high to penetrate
even a few metres below the surface?
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2022 14:37, Sn!pe wrote:
I believe there are no longer any spare final power amplifier valvesThere is at least one company still making high power AM transmitters,
for Droitwich LW Tx and no replacements are being made. When the
current PA valves die, so will the LW service.
which are solid state, modular, and can exceed the current power at
Droitwich. The problem is political and financial, not the engineering.
<https://www.collinsaerospace.com/what-we-do/Military-And-Defense/Communications/Ground-Communications/Vlf-Lf-Transmitters>
Interesting, thanks for the link, John.
It seems that I'm more out of date than I realised.
On 28/05/2022 14:37, Sn!pe wrote:
I believe there are no longer any spare final power amplifier valves
for Droitwich LW Tx and no replacements are being made. When the
current PA valves die, so will the LW service.
There is at least one company still making high power AM transmitters,
which are solid state, modular, and can exceed the current power at Droitwich. The problem is political and financial, not the engineering.
<https://www.collinsaerospace.com/what-we-do/Military-And-Defense/Communications/Ground-Communications/Vlf-Lf-Transmitters>
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:t6skpp$1o5$1@dont-email.me...
There has never been any attempt to hide plans to close Radio 4 LongTo be fair, in the days when I listened to Radio 4 (in the 1990s), I
Wave and Medium Wave service. Both are very expensive to operate and
little used with alternatives available.
Just been a powerful lobby wanting coverage of the most boring "sport"
known to man. At least we no longer seem to get the claims that Medium
Wave sounded better because it was a "warmer" sound.
often chose the LW service over FM because the limited bandwidth seemed
to make the NICAM artefacts less aggravating!
On 28/05/2022 14:16, Alexander wrote:
To be fair, in the days when I listened to Radio 4 (in the 1990s), IAll in your head possibly, the AM transmitters were fed from NICAM
often chose the LW service over FM because the limited bandwidth seemed
to make the NICAM artefacts less aggravating!
bearers too I think ?
I believe there are no longer any spare final power amplifier valves
for Droitwich LW Tx and no replacements are being made. When the
current PA valves die, so will the LW service.
the infrastructure required to add
conditional access to Freeview is already in place; every Freeview TV
has a CAM interface on the rear (typically a card slot) to facilitate
access to encrypted services.
I presume you're in favour of charging for entrance to museums,
then parks ... then schools, then health ... how about beaches? --
Alexander wrote:
the infrastructure required to add
conditional access to Freeview is already in place; every Freeview TV
has a CAM interface on the rear (typically a card slot) to facilitate
access to encrypted services.
Early ones, yes; current ones, not so much.
There will always be a free to air rump service. The politicians need the
BBC to get their message over to us plebs.
On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:45:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
There will always be a free to air rump service. The politicians
need the BBC to get their message over to us plebs.
And those of us who can't stand brainless commercials.
On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:45:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
There will always be a free to air rump service. The politicians need the
BBC to get their message over to us plebs.
And those of us who can't stand brainless commercials.
Steve
In article <a4l69hpf5vbau96unm7su29r7m2e1bprvm@4ax.com>,
Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:45:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
There will always be a free to air rump service. The politicians
need the BBC to get their message over to us plebs.
And those of us who can't stand brainless commercials.
Everyone hates adverts but that's what the fast forward button is for
and another reason to never watch live.
Personally though, I find adverts less irritating than wokery and
constant preaching of the BBC.
Bob.
In article <a4l69hpf5vbau96unm7su29r7m2e1bprvm@4ax.com>,
Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:45:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
There will always be a free to air rump service. The politicians
need the BBC to get their message over to us plebs.
And those of us who can't stand brainless commercials.
Everyone hates adverts but that's what the fast forward button is for
and another reason to never watch live.
Personally though, I find adverts less irritating than wokery and
constant preaching of the BBC.
Bob.
On Sun, 29 May 2022 07:37:36 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Alexander wrote:
the infrastructure required to add
conditional access to Freeview is already in place; every Freeview TV
has a CAM interface on the rear (typically a card slot) to facilitate
access to encrypted services.
Early ones, yes; current ones, not so much.
If that's the way they decided to do it, rather than just putting the
paid stuff behind a paywall on the internet (where the necessary
mechanisms already exist and could be implemented tomorrow) then
adoption would depend on demand. Anybody who thought the encrypted
programmes were worth paying for could buy a suitable receiver or
adaptor, as long as there were manufacturers who thought it worthwhile
to produce them. It would all depend, via market forces, on what the customers wanted, as it should. Some of us don't believe that the
cookery programmes, inane quiz shows and soap operas from one single broadcaster constitute an essential public service that must be paid
for by everyone.
I'm not sure how effectively is could be done though. I still have one
of the little card programmers that became available when digital TV broadcasting was first implemented. You couldn't (officially) buy a
receiver, only rent one from a company called Ondigital, and they all
had card slots and all the broadcasts were encrypted. You were
supposed to buy decrypting cards for the particular selection of
programmes that interested you, but the codes to decrypt all of them
were regularly posted online and easily entered into a blank card. I
don't know what would prevent the same happening again.
The lack of decent output of late from the BBC is going to be its downfall rather than pointless arguments as to whether it is biased. Lots of tired formats, especially umpteen cooking shows. Perhaps culling back to just
BBC1 and BBC2 (on TV) might be best. Scrap the rolling news and put more thought and resources into the main BBC1 bulletins.
In article <a4l69hpf5vbau96unm7su29r7m2e1bprvm@4ax.com>,
Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:45:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
There will always be a free to air rump service. The politicians
need the BBC to get their message over to us plebs.
And those of us who can't stand brainless commercials.
Everyone hates adverts but that's what the fast forward button is for
and another reason to never watch live.
Personally though, I find adverts less irritating than wokery and
constant preaching of the BBC.
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:t6vp05$g3n$1@dont-email.me...
The lack of decent output of late from the BBC is going to be its downfall >> rather than pointless arguments as to whether it is biased. Lots of tired
formats, especially umpteen cooking shows. Perhaps culling back to just
BBC1 and BBC2 (on TV) might be best. Scrap the rolling news and put more
thought and resources into the main BBC1 bulletins.
Taxing people to fund production and/or broadcasts of entertainment,
pop music, sports, propaganda, Hollywood movies, tacky "local" radio,
and all the other drivel they currently pump out, cannot.
Only in your opinion. Many other countries have moved to fund some or all
of their BBC equivalents out of taxation, usually from local property
taxes. Much of their output is significantly worse than that generated by
the BBC.
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:t6vuh1$3p3$1@dont-email.me...
Only in your opinion. Many other countries have moved to fund some or all >> of their BBC equivalents out of taxation, usually from local property
taxes. Much of their output is significantly worse than that generated by
the BBC.
Your argument is a non-sequitur.
Many other countries also have slums, dictators, famine, etcetera.
Doesn't mean we should too.
That's because ONDigital were using weak encryption.
The lack of decent output of late from the BBC is going to be its downfall rather than pointless arguments as to whether it is biased. Lots of tired formats, especially umpteen cooking shows. Perhaps culling back to just
BBC1 and BBC2 (on TV) might be best. Scrap the rolling news and put more thought and resources into the main BBC1 bulletins.
The lack of decent output can only increase, because the more talented
people will always 'follow the money', and in 2022 the big money (in
terms of both wages and production budgets) comes from the streaming
giants.
The BBC only advertise "coming soon" programs. That's OK to me.
Seriously, they're worse.
On 29/05/2022 16:27, williamwright wrote:
Seriously, they're worse.
They cannot possibly be worse than many of the adverts which seem to
be designed to iritate and annoy the viewer and are often shown in advertising break.
I agree with you there. And before anyone chimes up about BBC trailers
being as bad as commercials, they really are not.
In practice, all modern TVs continue to provide the Common Interface
required for a CAM.
If (as somoene claimed) the UK requirement for manufacturers to
implement this feature was removed in 2019, it doesn't mean that all
new TV models will suddenly cease to provide it.
In any event, most new sets are 'Smart' so, in the (very) rare
instances where there isn't a CI. an iPlayer-based subscription service
could be used instead, or alternatively an inexpensive set-top-box.
But that would just be internet streaming, not encrypted broadcasting.
We've already got it. You can buy an inexpensive Amazon stick now.
On 29/05/2022 16:57, MB wrote:
On 29/05/2022 16:27, williamwright wrote:Adverts often shown in an advertising break, well, fancy that eh !
Seriously, they're worse.
They cannot possibly be worse than many of the adverts which seem to
be designed to iritate and annoy the viewer and are often shown in
advertising break.
In article <t70ibu$tpt$1@dont-email.me>,
Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
The BBC has succeeded in misleading Parliament by persuading it that
conditional access is impossible without broadband.
Surely, that is why there is OFCOM: To set the rules
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:7vf79hp0js35om9072najpm6n5svc46i4i@4ax.com...
But that would just be internet streaming, not encrypted broadcasting.
We've already got it. You can buy an inexpensive Amazon stick now.
No, and this is the important point; the CAM interface is for
encrypted *broadcast* content delivered via DVB-T, and accessed with
a viewing card.
The BBC has succeeded in misleading Parliament by persuading it that conditional access is impossible without broadband.
Last year, a government committee declared that "the Government has
left itself with no option on the licence fee, not least because it
has failed to put in place the necessary broadband infrastructure that
would facilitate other funding mechanisms".
In other words, they are falsely claiming that any change to the TV
licence will have to wait until fast, reliable broadband is available nationwide, which could be a very long time away, if one considers the
cost of deploying and upgrading networks in remote areas with low
population density.
In reality the BBC could encrypt the signal next week and
all most people would need to do is insert a card into their TV.
Or use an external Freeview (or Sky) set-top-box with a card slot.
Or an encrypted version of iPlayer, where feasible.
IF they wanted to pay for BBC services, that is.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:t6vuh1$3p3$1@dont-email.me...
Only in your opinion. Many other countries have moved to fund some or all >>> of their BBC equivalents out of taxation, usually from local property
taxes. Much of their output is significantly worse than that generated by >>> the BBC.
Your argument is a non-sequitur.
Many other countries also have slums, dictators, famine, etcetera.
Doesn't mean we should too.
The countries I refer to are Western European democracies.
On 29/05/2022 17:05, Mark Carver wrote:
On 29/05/2022 16:57, MB wrote:I would have said repeatedly shown....
On 29/05/2022 16:27, williamwright wrote:Adverts often shown in an advertising break, well, fancy that eh !
Seriously, they're worse.
They cannot possibly be worse than many of the adverts which seem to
be designed to iritate and annoy the viewer and are often shown in
advertising break.
The repetition is the reason why adverts take so long to make. 3
seconds of material per day of filming is an excellent result, and the >agencies are happy with one second. I have seen up to a hundred takes
for a one second cutaway shot. If the audience are going to see it a
few hundred times (not a exaggeration), it has to be perfect at least
in the eyes if the agency and their staff.
The bias issue is important, because the core requirement of a
public service broadcaster in a democratic country, is an ability
to provide unbiased and factual news reporting. The BBC has failed
to provide this now for many years.
On Sun, 29 May 2022 at 22:06:38, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
The repetition is the reason why adverts take so long to make. 3The repetition can go too far though. There's one current one, involving playing music into liquid chocolate; when I first saw it, I thought it
seconds of material per day of filming is an excellent result, and the
agencies are happy with one second. I have seen up to a hundred takes
for a one second cutaway shot. If the audience are going to see it a
few hundred times (not a exaggeration), it has to be perfect at least
in the eyes if the agency and their staff.
was quite clever: obviously involved either a lot of clever CGI, or real filming, or probably a combination of both; quite a catchy tune, too.
But on some of the channels I watch, I think it is appearing in _every_
ad. break - and I'm not exaggerating. I will certainly have seen it a
few hundred times over the last few weeks.
On 29/05/2022 15:02, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
The BBC only advertise "coming soon" programs. That's OK to me.
It is funny when people who moan about "adverts" on BBC also moan about
not being aware of a programme so missing it, some seem to think the BBC should ring them personally!
The repetition is the reason why adverts take so long to make. 3 seconds
of material per day of filming is an excellent result, and the agencies
are happy with one second. I have seen up to a hundred takes for a one
second cutaway shot. If the audience are going to see it a few hundred
times (not a exaggeration), it has to be perfect at least in the eyes if
the agency and their staff.
The repetition can go too far though. There's one current one, involving playing music into liquid chocolate; when I first saw it, I thought it
was quite clever: obviously involved either a lot of clever CGI, or real filming, or probably a combination of both; quite a catchy tune, too.
But on some of the channels I watch, I think it is appearing in_every_
ad. break - and I'm not exaggerating. I will certainly have seen it a
few hundred times over the last few weeks.
I'm unsure as to how that relates to what I was saying, but it should
be noted that OFCOM consists of mostly senior ex-BBC staff who, one
can assume, will be expecting a generous BBC pension one day when
they retire.
On 29/05/2022 21:57, Alexander wrote:
I'm unsure as to how that relates to what I was saying, but it should
be noted that OFCOM consists of mostly senior ex-BBC staff who, one
can assume, will be expecting a generous BBC pension one day when
they retire.
Have you actually looked up OFCOM's management and board?
They are from wide range of places, many civil servants and a few career OFCOM people. One has worked for RTE and BBC and another for Amazon. No
ex career BBC staff.
I can'r see any ex ITV or SKY but probably not prepared to take the drop
in salary.
The BBC's fundamentally false claims, re: the technical feasibilty of encrypting linear TV services on Freeview, were lapped up by government,
and were never challenged; not by OFCOM, nor by anyone else.
On 01/06/2022 15:25, Alexander wrote:
The BBC's fundamentally false claims, re: the technical feasibilty of
encrypting linear TV services on Freeview, were lapped up by government,
and were never challenged; not by OFCOM, nor by anyone else.
Though the way another broadcast company is said to leaked details of breaking ONDIGITAL encryption suggests that there was truth in what you
say they claimed.
We ended up with Freeview Lite because of commercial interests
campaigning against universal coverage for all services, not technical reasons.
We ended up with Freeview Lite because of commercial interests
campaigning against universal coverage for all services, not technical reasons.
The BBC's fundamentally false claims, re: the technical feasibilty of >encrypting linear TV services on Freeview, were lapped up by government,
and were never challenged; not by OFCOM, nor by anyone else.
On 28/05/2022 14:37, Sn!pe wrote:
I believe there are no longer any spare final power amplifier valvesThere is at least one company still making high power AM transmitters,
for Droitwich LW Tx and no replacements are being made. When the
current PA valves die, so will the LW service.
which are solid state, modular, and can exceed the current power at >Droitwich. The problem is political and financial, not the engineering.
https://www.collinsaerospace.com/what-we-do/Military-And- >Defense/Communications/Ground-Communications/Vlf-Lf-Transmitters
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 15:25:45 +0100, "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:
The BBC's fundamentally false claims, re: the technical feasibilty of >>encrypting linear TV services on Freeview, were lapped up by government, >>and were never challenged; not by OFCOM, nor by anyone else.
There's nothing unfeasible about encrypting broadcasts. We've done it,
so we know it can be done. The main consideration if we wanted to
introduce it now into an existing broadcast system would not be the
technical problems of setting up the encryption, but the politics of rendering millions of TV receivers inoperative unless their owners
purchased extra equipment to decode the broadcasts. Maybe that's what
the BBC and the government are reluctant to do?
Well two things. Firstly, you may remember (after all you were a BBC transmitter engineer) that we just about managed to cram four fully
national analogue TV services into the UHF band at 1154 sites. There was
no way post DSO, (and with everything above UHF Ch 60 taken away from broadcasting too) that 6 muxes were going to be possible.
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:udtg9ht6mtrut34t70mvnilt28h7fi77jn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 15:25:45 +0100, "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:
The BBC's fundamentally false claims, re: the technical feasibilty of >>>encrypting linear TV services on Freeview, were lapped up by government, >>>and were never challenged; not by OFCOM, nor by anyone else.
There's nothing unfeasible about encrypting broadcasts. We've done it,
so we know it can be done. The main consideration if we wanted to
introduce it now into an existing broadcast system would not be the
technical problems of setting up the encryption, but the politics of
rendering millions of TV receivers inoperative unless their owners
purchased extra equipment to decode the broadcasts. Maybe that's what
the BBC and the government are reluctant to do?
That isn't the reason they gave.
In any event, when you subscribe to a TV service, the additional
equipment required to view it (a simple card in this case) is
invariably supplied free of charge.
Sky supplied a viewing card to viewers in the early 90s when its
services were first encrypted, and a free Videocrypt decoder to
customers with receivers that lacked a card slot.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 16:15:45 +0100, "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:udtg9ht6mtrut34t70mvnilt28h7fi77jn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 15:25:45 +0100, "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:
The BBC's fundamentally false claims, re: the technical feasibilty of
encrypting linear TV services on Freeview, were lapped up by government, >>>> and were never challenged; not by OFCOM, nor by anyone else.
There's nothing unfeasible about encrypting broadcasts. We've done it,
so we know it can be done. The main consideration if we wanted to
introduce it now into an existing broadcast system would not be the
technical problems of setting up the encryption, but the politics of
rendering millions of TV receivers inoperative unless their owners
purchased extra equipment to decode the broadcasts. Maybe that's what
the BBC and the government are reluctant to do?
That isn't the reason they gave.
In any event, when you subscribe to a TV service, the additional
equipment required to view it (a simple card in this case) is
invariably supplied free of charge.
Sky supplied a viewing card to viewers in the early 90s when its
services were first encrypted, and a free Videocrypt decoder to
customers with receivers that lacked a card slot.
To receive encrypted Freeview broadcasts would require in most cases a
lot more than a card. None of the Freeview equipment in my setup or
any nearby family setups has anywhere to put a card. There would have
to be an extra box of some sort, and not only would the users have to
plug it all together and set it up, once it was working they'd have to
learn to change channels using a separate remote control. I'm sure
this would be only a minor nuisance to most of the denizens of
technical newsgroups like this, but for most ordinary mortals an
arrangement like that would be utterly beyond them.
What sort of box would be needed that could connect to any of the
millions of TV receivers already in use? What about receivers with
hard drives and only aerial inputs - would the box re-encode to a
digital signal that the receiver could use, rather than to a video
signal? And what sort of video signal would it be for those that could
use it? What about all the TV sets that don't have HDMI inputs but are connected to things with SCART outputs or analogue modulators? Can you imagine what the helpline would be like on the first day?
To receive encrypted Freeview broadcasts would require in most cases a
lot more than a card. None of the Freeview equipment in my setup or
any nearby family setups has anywhere to put a card.
On 03/06/2022 09:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 16:15:45 +0100, "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:udtg9ht6mtrut34t70mvnilt28h7fi77jn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 15:25:45 +0100, "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:
The BBC's fundamentally false claims, re: the technical feasibilty of >>>>> encrypting linear TV services on Freeview, were lapped up by government, >>>>> and were never challenged; not by OFCOM, nor by anyone else.
There's nothing unfeasible about encrypting broadcasts. We've done it, >>>> so we know it can be done. The main consideration if we wanted to
introduce it now into an existing broadcast system would not be the
technical problems of setting up the encryption, but the politics of
rendering millions of TV receivers inoperative unless their owners
purchased extra equipment to decode the broadcasts. Maybe that's what
the BBC and the government are reluctant to do?
That isn't the reason they gave.
In any event, when you subscribe to a TV service, the additional
equipment required to view it (a simple card in this case) is
invariably supplied free of charge.
Sky supplied a viewing card to viewers in the early 90s when its
services were first encrypted, and a free Videocrypt decoder to
customers with receivers that lacked a card slot.
To receive encrypted Freeview broadcasts would require in most cases a
lot more than a card. None of the Freeview equipment in my setup or
any nearby family setups has anywhere to put a card. There would have
to be an extra box of some sort, and not only would the users have to
plug it all together and set it up, once it was working they'd have to
learn to change channels using a separate remote control. I'm sure
this would be only a minor nuisance to most of the denizens of
technical newsgroups like this, but for most ordinary mortals an
arrangement like that would be utterly beyond them.
What sort of box would be needed that could connect to any of the
millions of TV receivers already in use? What about receivers with
hard drives and only aerial inputs - would the box re-encode to a
digital signal that the receiver could use, rather than to a video
signal? And what sort of video signal would it be for those that could
use it? What about all the TV sets that don't have HDMI inputs but are
connected to things with SCART outputs or analogue modulators? Can you
imagine what the helpline would be like on the first day?
I think it was Greg Dyke, when he was the BBC DG, who promoted
"Freeview" (without encryption), specifically to prolong the life of the licence fee system. "Set top boxes" aren't much good with a recorder.
I've got a TV and a PVR (old stock) with slots for CAM adapters, and a
newer PVR without. Broadcasters won't care, as they don't want people to record things anyway.
My guess is that very few people in 2022 would subscribe to the full
BBC package that we're currently all forced to pay for in any event...
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:t7cv0l$atp$1@dont-email.me...
Yes, but the politicians will care. They’ll have a very vocal bunch of
constituents wanting to know why they have to dump existing equipment
and/or go out and buy decoder modules
No need to dump existing TVs, because the TVs already have provision for encryption, in the form of a card slot.
The card / CAM is inexpensive and these things are invariably given
free when you subscribe. It really couldn't be simpler.
and then start having to pay a
subscription. Suddenly the licence fee won’t seem that bad. Where a reform >> generates significant numbers of winners and losers it’s the losers that >> make the noise.
The Licence Fee is a subscription - one that are all forced to pay, on
pain of imprisonment, whether or not we actually want the services
on offer.
Yes, but the politicians will care. They’ll have a very vocal bunch of constituents wanting to know why they have to dump existing equipment
and/or go out and buy decoder modules
and then start having to pay a
subscription. Suddenly the licence fee won’t seem that bad. Where a reform generates significant numbers of winners and losers it’s the losers that make the noise.
You don’t get imprisoned for licence fee evasion. You may get imprisoned for willful non payment of any fine.
A fine distinction for the mum of a one-parent family who can't afford
food and fuel never mind a TV licence.
On 03/06/2022 15:03, Tweed wrote:
You don’t get imprisoned for licence fee evasion. You may get imprisoned >> for willful non payment of any fine.
A fine distinction for the mum of a one-parent family who can't afford
food and fuel never mind a TV licence.
Bill
On 03/06/2022 15:51, williamwright wrote:
A fine distinction for the mum of a one-parent family who can't afford
food and fuel never mind a TV licence.
But can afford a 50" TV set and subscriptions to Netfix, Amazon, Sky etc
A fine distinction for the mum of a one-parent family who can't afford
food and fuel never mind a TV licence.
But can afford a 50" TV set and subscriptions to Netfix, Amazon, Sky etc
You over estimate the willingness of many members of the public to want to tangle with things technical. Even if the decryption device is free what do you do about multi television households? Sky only got round this by having the set top boxes phone home firstly by a phone line and latterly via the Internet. So your subscription modules have to be Internet connected at the very least. There’s a not insignificant number of people whose only Internet connection is via their mobile phone.
You don’t get imprisoned for licence fee evasion. You may get imprisoned for willful non payment of any fine.
My guess is the BBC will end up being funded via the council tax bill, as
per the police and fire services (varies by where you live) and even your water supply in some parts of the UK.
They may attempt to fund the BBC via the council tax, because it
would never survive against the competition in a free market.
My Freeview TV has nowhere to insert a card, and as it is "obsolete" according to the makers, there is no easy way to add a box to use one.
Compared with digital switchover, which for many involved either
replacing the TV set, or installing and then learning how to
use a set-top-box in order to continue viewing any TV service at
all, the card installation is trivial.
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:t7d4bn$mqg$1@dont-email.me...
You over estimate the willingness of many members of the public to want
to tangle with things technical. Even if the decryption device is free
what do you do about multi television households? Sky only got round
this by having the set top boxes phone home firstly by a phone line and latterly via the Internet. So your subscription modules have to be
Internet connected at the very least. There‘s a not insignificant
number of people whose only Internet connection is via their mobile
phone.
You don‘t get imprisoned for licence fee evasion. You may get
imprisoned for willful non payment of any fine.
My guess is the BBC will end up being funded via the council tax bill,
as per the police and fire services (varies by where you live) and even your water supply in some parts of the UK.
It's not really technical though is it. They send a card and the
customer inserts it. It's as easy as inserting a credit card at the till.
Compared with digital switchover, which for many involved either
replacing the TV set, or installing and then learning how to use a set-top-box in order to continue viewing any TV service at all, the card installation is trivial.
With regard to piracy, that's always an issue, even more so with online services such as Netflix, where password sharing is very common. It
hasn't made the subscription business model unviable, however.
Generally where a card is used, you pay to watch on one device, or pay slightly more per additional device for a 'multiroom' deal.
They may attempt to fund the BBC via the council tax, because it would
never survive against the competition in a free market.
On 08/06/2022 14:00, John Williamson wrote:
My Freeview TV has nowhere to insert a card, and as it is "obsolete"
according to the makers, there is no easy way to add a box to use one.
I made a similar comment some time ago. Rather like software updates,
you only get them for a year or so then the device is considered
obsolete by the manufacturer and they lose interest.
My TV set is over ten years old, could be nearer 15 years, but works perfectly OK so I am in no hurry to change it.
In article <t7q5te$3vj$1@dont-email.me>, Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
They may attempt to fund the BBC via the council tax, because it would
never survive against the competition in a free market.
when the last attempt (by Margaret Thatcher) to abolish the licence fee,
ITV objected strongly on the basis that the BBC would get all the
adversising revenue and they'd loose out.
On what basis did ITV make that claim at the time? I don't think
advertisers would discriminate.
On 08/06/2022 15:55, Alexander wrote:
On what basis did ITV make that claim at the time? I don't think
advertisers would discriminate.
Probably because ITV cost more to operate, I remember in the days when
there were two channels you do an easy comparison of costs and ITV cost
a lot more to produce one channel than BBC did even with the radio services.
No reason to suspect it has changed, advertising is a very inefficient
way to fund anything.
ITV might well have been wasting more money than the BBC at this time, but now the picture looks very different.
On 09/06/2022 14:14, Alexander wrote:
ITV might well have been wasting more money than the BBC at this time, but >> now the picture looks very different.
Not so sure about, the most obvious feature is amounts paid to
executives and "talent". But after we were privatised there was a
general increase in waste but they are better at covering it up.
On 09/06/2022 14:14, Alexander wrote:
ITV might well have been wasting more money than the BBC at this time, but >> now the picture looks very different.
Not so sure about, the most obvious feature is amounts paid to
executives and "talent". But after we were privatised there was a
general increase in waste but they are better at covering it up.
ITV objected strongly on the basis that the BBC would get all the
adversising revenue and they'd loose out.
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:13:58 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
ITV objected strongly on the basis that the BBC would get all the
adversising revenue and they'd loose out.
You really need to tighten up your speeling Chuck.
On 10/06/2022 00:24, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:13:58 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote: >>
ITV objected strongly on the basis that the BBC would get all theYou really need to tighten up your speeling Chuck.
adversising revenue and they'd loose out.
They are typos not misspellings, I think.
Bill
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 03:13:38, williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
On 10/06/2022 00:24, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:13:58 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
ITV objected strongly on the basis that the BBC would get all the You really need to tighten up your speeling Chuck.
adversising revenue and they'd loose out.
They are typos not misspellings, I think.
Bill
The first one might be; the second might also be, but could also be a
common error (which a spelling checker wouldn't spot, as it's a valid
word).
On 10/06/2022 16:36, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 03:13:38, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
On 10/06/2022 00:24, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:The first one might be; the second might also be, but could also be
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:13:58 +0100, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
ITV objected strongly on the basis that the BBC would get all theYou really need to tighten up your speeling Chuck.
adversising revenue and they'd loose out.
They are typos not misspellings, I think.
Bill
a common error (which a spelling checker wouldn't spot, as it's a
valid word).
In which case there was little justification in pointing the errors
out. In fact, is there ever?
Bill
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 113:34:54 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,110 |
