Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

In article ,
pete wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:17:28 -0000, James R wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people
will put up with this?

Why are people so thick as to put up with something that is broken?
Why refuse to get something fixed.

It's not necessarily a case of being thick.

[Snip]

but this attitude has been around for years. Sometime in the early 80s I
had to go and see the chap in charge of Ceefax because since he personally
couldn't get BBC2 Ceefax without errors he was going to pull the General
Election coverage. I could see Crystal Palace from his road and there was a
very strong signal available. However, the set was fed with about an extra
10m of vhf co-ax - so it could be taken into the garden. BBC2 pictures
were so 'snowy' the picture was barely discernable, explaing why Ceefax
didn't work. I remarked that the BBC2 pictures weren't very good to
recieve the reply "I woudn't know, I'm only a journalist". This journalist
had for the previous 5 years been the BBC's Science Correspondent and
obviously seen studio quality pictures every working day!

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

In article , Graham
scribeth thus


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
om...
I think you are talking about the bus stop effect here. You rear it all the
time. You find someone with be getting a poor signal, and then another
person with a poor signal will say, Yes, I've been told its like that
around here. Interestingly, all the people with good signals at the bus
stop never say anything to contradict them, presumably to keep from an
argument.

If people think its normal, then they won't do anything about it.
Brian

--
There is certainly a received wisdom that everybody gets poorer
reception on channel 5. Of course there is a great deal of truth
in this, but it's but no means inevitable.



Not surprising in the case of 't eath. Some 10 kW -v- 1 odd Megawatt ERP
IIRC and the 10 K on a rather directional aerial.

CH-5 here in Cambridge from the heath is almost non existent.. We have
our very own analogue CH 5 'mitter from Madingley at 5 kW..

Makes me wonder Bill which you didn't introduce them to the delights of
a digital TV Boxen;?...
--
Tony Sayer

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

"James R" wrote in message
...
There is one in this group that slags every other companies work off but
will never name them.

But does that person use his own name, or does he prefer to make his nasty
comments anonymously? And James, does he change his name from time to time
when he gets unpopular? That would be the sign of a real bounder.

Bill

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

In message , tony sayer
writes

CH-5 here in Cambridge from the heath is almost non existent.. We have
our very own analogue CH 5 'mitter from Madingley at 5 kW..

Makes me wonder Bill which you didn't introduce them to the delights of
a digital TV Boxen;?...


Hi Tony,
I think I understand what you said there.......

They had a digi box which after the new splitter was fitted worked fine

"Connected the set top digi box up and showed them what was available
and they are nearly tempted to go out and buy a new TV."

They are now looking at a new TV with integral freeview.
They are certainly not thick, as has been suggested here, they had
heard 5 was always poor and as for BBC1 they had grown used to it.


--
Bill

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 22:38:57 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Graham
scribeth thus


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. com...
I think you are talking about the bus stop effect here. You rear it all the
time. You find someone with be getting a poor signal, and then another
person with a poor signal will say, Yes, I've been told its like that
around here. Interestingly, all the people with good signals at the bus
stop never say anything to contradict them, presumably to keep from an
argument.

If people think its normal, then they won't do anything about it.
Brian

--
There is certainly a received wisdom that everybody gets poorer
reception on channel 5. Of course there is a great deal of truth
in this, but it's but no means inevitable.



Not surprising in the case of 't eath. Some 10 kW -v- 1 odd Megawatt ERP
IIRC and the 10 K on a rather directional aerial.

CH-5 here in Cambridge from the heath is almost non existent.. We have
our very own analogue CH 5 'mitter from Madingley at 5 kW..

Makes me wonder Bill which you didn't introduce them to the delights of
a digital TV Boxen;?...

I found Five quite patchy in Bedford. Where I lived, my neighbour had
an old 5 element group A (with rotting coax) that picked up Five
perfectly. My aerial was less than 10 yards from there's and Five was
very grainy (10 element group A). I changed to a 14 element wideband
and it vastly improved, but the neighbour's Five was still cleaner on
their battered old group A. It wasn't 'till I installed a Televes
DAT45 that Five was as clean as the other 4 analogue channels.
Amazingly, the DAT45 didn't cause overloading of the stronger
channels.

Marky P.

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:15:23 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
pete wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:17:28 -0000, James R wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people
will put up with this?

Why are people so thick as to put up with something that is broken?
Why refuse to get something fixed.

It's not necessarily a case of being thick.

[Snip]

but this attitude has been around for years. Sometime in the early 80s I
had to go and see the chap in charge of Ceefax because since he personally
couldn't get BBC2 Ceefax without errors he was going to pull the General
Election coverage. I could see Crystal Palace from his road and there was a
very strong signal available. However, the set was fed with about an extra
10m of vhf co-ax - so it could be taken into the garden. BBC2 pictures
were so 'snowy' the picture was barely discernable, explaing why Ceefax
didn't work. I remarked that the BBC2 pictures weren't very good to
recieve the reply "I woudn't know, I'm only a journalist". This journalist
had for the previous 5 years been the BBC's Science Correspondent and
obviously seen studio quality pictures every working day!

I gather by that, that jounalists have poor eyesight? It's the only
reason I can think of. This has also made me think of my Brother
watching 4:3 broadcasts in 'stretch-o-vision' and him comenting on how
fat people on telly are. I explained the situation to him and asked
him if he would prefer the right aspect ratio or fat people filling
the screen and he opted for the latter.

Marky P.

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:46:42 +0000, Bill wrote:
Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people
will put up with this?

Many people have no idea what they ought to be receiving.

I guess that there are plenty of people who might be wondering whether
they
could get better pictures on their telly but are terrified of asking an
expert
who will say things they will not understand and might charge them a lot
of
money for the privilege.

Yea, I think the "overcharge" thing is a huge issue.. What Bill did would
have probably cost £150 by most "installers".. And if they would have ever
asked in the mainstream TV shops then some prepubsecent senior sale
supervising manager who has leveled to 99 with his 6 hours of training will
tell you that to get a better quality picture you will need a £900 TV with
gold scart leads connected through the VCR (as non gold ones corrupt the
signal that comes from the transmitter)..

The days of information, service, and sales has been replaced by sell, sell,
sell..

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

In article , Marky P
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:15:23 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , pete
wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:17:28 -0000, James R wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if
people will put up with this?

Why are people so thick as to put up with something that is broken?
Why refuse to get something fixed.

It's not necessarily a case of being thick.

[Snip]

but this attitude has been around for years. Sometime in the early 80s I
had to go and see the chap in charge of Ceefax because since he
personally couldn't get BBC2 Ceefax without errors he was going to pull
the General Election coverage. I could see Crystal Palace from his road
and there was a very strong signal available. However, the set was fed
with about an extra 10m of vhf co-ax - so it could be taken into the
garden. BBC2 pictures were so 'snowy' the picture was barely
discernable, explaing why Ceefax didn't work. I remarked that the BBC2
pictures weren't very good to recieve the reply "I woudn't know, I'm
only a journalist". This journalist had for the previous 5 years been
the BBC's Science Correspondent and obviously seen studio quality
pictures every working day!

I gather by that, that jounalists have poor eyesight? It's the only
reason I can think of.

My interpretatiom was that he could only have been the Science
Correspondent because he could pronounce the words in the scripts he was
given.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:15:23 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
pete wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:17:28 -0000, James R wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if
people
will put up with this?

Why are people so thick as to put up with something that is
broken?
Why refuse to get something fixed.

It's not necessarily a case of being thick.

[Snip]

but this attitude has been around for years. Sometime in the early 80s
I
had to go and see the chap in charge of Ceefax because since he
personally
couldn't get BBC2 Ceefax without errors he was going to pull the
General
Election coverage. I could see Crystal Palace from his road and there
was a
very strong signal available. However, the set was fed with about an
extra
10m of vhf co-ax - so it could be taken into the garden. BBC2
pictures
were so 'snowy' the picture was barely discernable, explaing why
Ceefax
didn't work. I remarked that the BBC2 pictures weren't very good to
recieve the reply "I woudn't know, I'm only a journalist". This
journalist
had for the previous 5 years been the BBC's Science Correspondent and
obviously seen studio quality pictures every working day!

I gather by that, that jounalists have poor eyesight? It's the only
reason I can think of. This has also made me think of my Brother
watching 4:3 broadcasts in 'stretch-o-vision' and him comenting on how
fat people on telly are. I explained the situation to him and asked
him if he would prefer the right aspect ratio or fat people filling
the screen and he opted for the latter.

Marky P.


I stayed (yes, I'll name it) at the Premier Inn Carlisle Central North
(phew!) just before Christmas. Presumably in preparation for Caldbeck
going digi sometime soon (?) they had new Philips hotel TV's with
built-in Freeview in every room.

Great! For the first time in many years in staying in a hotel I had a TV
with a good picture on all channels - NOT! Whoever installed them had
set them all to centre cut-out, so we had to endure newsreaders with
long thin faces and footballers that must have had Tutsi relatives! The
restricted remote would not, of course, permit this to be changed.

I asked at Reception if they had a full remote so that it could be
adjusted - to which the answer was no. All of the TVs were/are installed
and maintained by Comet.

Says it all really. Mind you, when the Customer Satisfaction Survey
e-mail arrived a few days later I didn't half let rip - but probably to
no avail.......



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

In article , mr deo
scribeth thus

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:46:42 +0000, Bill wrote:
Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people
will put up with this?

Many people have no idea what they ought to be receiving.

I guess that there are plenty of people who might be wondering whether
they
could get better pictures on their telly but are terrified of asking an
expert
who will say things they will not understand and might charge them a lot
of
money for the privilege.

Yea, I think the "overcharge" thing is a huge issue.. What Bill did would
have probably cost £150 by most "installers".. And if they would have ever
asked in the mainstream TV shops then some prepubsecent senior sale
supervising manager who has leveled to 99 with his 6 hours of training will
tell you that to get a better quality picture you will need a £900 TV with
gold scart leads connected through the VCR (as non gold ones corrupt the
signal that comes from the transmitter)..

The days of information, service, and sales has been replaced by sell, sell,
sell..




Indeed.. Just wandering around curry's and vomit the other day and it
seems their pushing expensive leads now..

Perhaps they've been to the Russ Andrews academy of spin and ****e;!..
--
Tony Sayer