4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Martin" wrote in message
...

If the average viewers of BBC1 and BBC2 are 60 and 62 years old
respectively, as the BBC claims, it indicates a lack of young viewers.

How does that work then, Martin?

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article , Roderick
Stewart scribeth thus
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:03:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet,

Yes, that seems quite likely. However...

and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

Really? I'd be interested in seeing detailed evidence for that belief.

I probably don't have what you'd count as "detailed evidence" in the
form of graphs and charts, as I haven't carried out an actual survey
on this, but even the most casual general observation of the way
ordinary people are spending their time in front of screens and in the
presence of loudspeakers will make it clear that much of what they are
watching and listening to now has nothing to do with the BBC.

I remember when the BBC was the only source of *any* broadcasting in
this country. Then we acquired a second television channel, then a
third and a fourth, and somewhere during that time a number of
independent radio stations appeared. Then somebody invented the
internet, and that technology and its availability were gradually
improved until it too could be used for entertainment purposes. The
result is that once the BBC was the only broadcast entertainment
service there was, but now it's one amongst thousands of others. I
remember all this because I was there - it has all happened within my
lifetime and shows no sign of stopping. This may not count as detailed
evidence, but I think it shows a dramatic change in the significance
of the BBC amongst all the other related services that are available
to us now, those other services having climbed to their present
ubiquitous status from absolute nonexistance.

Rod.

All as it might be Rod, but its still difficult to get good Internet
coverage in the car unlike good old fM:!....

--
Tony Sayer

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:47:45 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

Really? I'd be interested in seeing detailed evidence for that
belief.

I probably don't have what you'd count as "detailed evidence" in the
form of graphs and charts, as I haven't carried out an actual survey
on this, but even the most casual general observation of the way
ordinary people are spending their time in front of screens and in
the presence of loudspeakers will make it clear that much of what
they are watching and listening to now has nothing to do with the BBC.

OK, that tells us your statement was just your belief based on selected
cases whose actual statistical significance is dubious. i.e OSAF. Might
have been better if you'd made plain it was simply your guess or
belief.

It's a little more than "just my belief" that the BBC was once the only
source of broadcast material in the UK but is now one amongst many.

Yes. But that is quite different to your earlier assertion about


On 17 Aug in uk.tech.digital-tv, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, and the
BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

....which your response to my query then made clear was simply you producing
OSAF.

My inability to provide exact statistical numbers doesn't alter this
fundamental fact. If you're unable to accept the truth unless it's
accompanied by numbers, I'm sure they can be found.

You seem to want to argue about something else that I didn't challenge.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:28:17 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:47:45 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

Really? I'd be interested in seeing detailed evidence for that
belief.

I probably don't have what you'd count as "detailed evidence" in
the form of graphs and charts, as I haven't carried out an actual
survey on this, but even the most casual general observation of
the way ordinary people are spending their time in front of
screens and in the presence of loudspeakers will make it clear
that much of what they are watching and listening to now has
nothing to do with the BBC.

OK, that tells us your statement was just your belief based on
selected cases whose actual statistical significance is dubious. i.e
OSAF. Might have been better if you'd made plain it was simply your
guess or belief.

It's a little more than "just my belief" that the BBC was once the
only source of broadcast material in the UK but is now one amongst
many.

Yes. But that is quite different to your earlier assertion about


On 17 Aug in uk.tech.digital-tv, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, and
the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

...which your response to my query then made clear was simply you
producing OSAF.

My inability to provide exact statistical numbers doesn't alter this
fundamental fact. If you're unable to accept the truth unless it's
accompanied by numbers, I'm sure they can be found.

You seem to want to argue about something else that I didn't challenge.

Rod's original claim was that he didn't need conventional TV anymore
because there was enough material on the web from Netflix and Amazon.
It's why I asked Rod if he still has a TV licence.

Fair enough. I was only dealing with the specific assertion about the BBC
becoming an "ever more insignificant part" of internet provision.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:28:17 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:47:45 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

Really? I'd be interested in seeing detailed evidence for that
belief.

I probably don't have what you'd count as "detailed evidence" in
the form of graphs and charts, as I haven't carried out an actual
survey on this, but even the most casual general observation of
the way ordinary people are spending their time in front of
screens and in the presence of loudspeakers will make it clear
that much of what they are watching and listening to now has
nothing to do with the BBC.

OK, that tells us your statement was just your belief based on
selected cases whose actual statistical significance is dubious. i.e
OSAF. Might have been better if you'd made plain it was simply your
guess or belief.

It's a little more than "just my belief" that the BBC was once the
only source of broadcast material in the UK but is now one amongst
many.

Yes. But that is quite different to your earlier assertion about


On 17 Aug in uk.tech.digital-tv, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, and
the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

...which your response to my query then made clear was simply you
producing OSAF.

My inability to provide exact statistical numbers doesn't alter this
fundamental fact. If you're unable to accept the truth unless it's
accompanied by numbers, I'm sure they can be found.

You seem to want to argue about something else that I didn't challenge.

Rod's original claim was that he didn't need conventional TV anymore
because there was enough material on the web from Netflix and Amazon.
It's why I asked Rod if he still has a TV licence.

Fair enough. I was only dealing with the specific assertion about the BBC
becoming an "ever more insignificant part" of internet provision.

Jim


Basically, Rod cant stand Auntie, no matter what.
Which is why in previous posts Ive suggested he cease paying his licence fee
with immediate effect, cut all co-ax cables in to the house (except that for
internet delivery) so as to ensure he can no longer receive any BBC
programming, cease paying NI, opt out of the NHS too, and get an Apple car
radio (which doesnt actually have a radio, so he cant recieve BBC radio
stations).

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
credit squeezing is just so they can get on with the next thing
a.s.a.p. whilst still satisfying the copyright owners demand to
ensure the full credits go to air.

The squeezing does at least sometimes tend make the credits virtually
unreadable. So I've been surprised that no copyright owners have
threatened to take action. The contracts of performers, etc, may
mandate the way their name appears in the credits. Presenting credits
in a way that makes them hard (or impossible) to read may violate
that. If so, interesting if no one has taken action. Maybe the
reality is that the star names can still be read, and the media
company doesn't care because they know the 'lesser' artists, etc,
won't be able to afford to persue any complaint.

But if the contract with the rights holders only says to "show the
credits in full", then there is nothing which says they can not be sped
up or squeezed! The contractual obligation has been served.

It would depend on what a court took "show" to mean in the event of an
annoyed artist, etc, taking action. Squeezing down the credits to one
pixel
for one frame might not be felt to mean "show" in terms of the legal
meanings of words in contracts. Seems to me quite reasonable for a court
to
so decide, and to require the text to be readable by viewers with normal
eyesight, etc, but it would be a matter for a court.


Well, it hasnt happened yet. And it would be no-one's interest to do so. One
party would win, but both parties would loose.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:12:56 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free
Amazon
right now if you want.
Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can
show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove
it
is impossible for you to receive television programmes.

Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house,
and that in any case you should have no obligation to prove your
innocence in the face of a presumption of guilt, it shouldn't be
necessary to cut any cables. I certainly wouldn't vandalise any of my
own property in case somebody *might* think I was doing something
illegal with it.

Rod.


Lets put it another way, I, and probably including lots of other
legitimate
licence fee payers, do not want you to continue receiving BBC services
once
you have ceased paying your LF.

I have no intention of ceasing to pay my TV licence as long as it
remains a legal requirement.

Is NOT a legal requirement.
+ lets not forget you wouldnt let in any investigators, so you're quite
safe. Arnt you.

This doesn't stop me having strong
opinions about the fact that it is a legal requirement, but I realise
that if it's a legal requirement for me, it's "fair" in the sense that
it's a legal requirement for everybody else too, and that I stand no
chance of changing it all by myself just by breaking the law.

Whether you invite the LF inspectors in for tea and biscuits are tell them
where to shove their court case, Im not really fussed.
But fact remains, the LF is NOT compulsory. Other services ARE available
by
other means.

True, other services are, but other *broadcast* services are not. We
still have the absurdity of having to pay the BBC to be allowed to
watch other broadcasts that the BBC has nothing to do with.

Which are also available by other means.


Rod.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message
o.uk...
_Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:
"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message
o.uk...
_Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:

Take a football match being covered in 4K. (Ive seen some.) Now
get your main gantry camera to frame on a stationary wide angle*
facing across the pitch. *As wide as the lens will go. Not
pointing at anything in particular. Such is the detail in that
picture you can make out individual facial expressions of people
in the crowd in the opposite stand (usually around 100metres
away). Its a fair wager that detail will _never_ be present in
any "Freeview 4K".


Instead of wasting so much bandwidth on such guff, why not just
turn up the bandwidth for present HD channels, and make Freeview
better quality than Sky satellite or BT TV???

I am curious what bitrate you think is enough for HD?

I dont know. I really cant be arsed to carry out loads of tests. But
I do know that when I watch Freeview HD, I got annoyed! ....yes I
know what the doctor will tell me!

I get annoyed because it looks so, well, ****! And this '****' is
sold as "HD". Its a bleedin' con!

Well I must admit having looked at the rates on the main HD mux 22.45 -
23.45 Saturday night and they were really much lower than they used to
be :-(

Yup.
Once all the analogue transmitters had been off for a while they turned down
the bit rates.



MOTD was on BBC1 HD and it maxed out at 7.5 mbit!

The highest I saw for BBC3 IIRC was 9mbit and it wasn't like there was
no space - the nulls min was 7mbit and max 12 for the whole hour
monitored.

This is nothing like a previous test I found that I did in 2012 - there
were also 5 HD channels on then (as C4 had the spare for the paralympics).
Then all 5 were going up to 14/15 mbit.

I know Film 4+1 SD is on now as well, but that maxed at 1.3mbit min 0.7.

What a pointless waste - broadcasting nulls - or maybe lack of
adaptability as 2x red button are listed on the web as being on the mux,
but were not running at the time of the test.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

On 17/08/2015 17:47, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
I probably don't have what you'd count as "detailed evidence" in the
form of graphs and charts, as I haven't carried out an actual survey on
this, but even the most casual general observation of the way ordinary
people are spending their time in front of screens and in the presence
of loudspeakers will make it clear that much of what they are watching
and listening to now has nothing to do with the BBC.

I asked, because I do wonder what the stats may be, and how they are
changing. I'm not even sure who could tell without either a serious survey
or asking the ISPs who carry a large enough fraction of the traffic.

https://support.bbc.co.uk/support/peering/
may be a good start, compared to total traffic at the exchanges:
https://www.linx.net/pubtools/trafficstats.html
http://www.lonap.net/mrtg/lonap-total.html

They did publish traffic graphs at some point too.

This won't give you relative to other media producers though.

--
Deanna Earley , )

(Replies direct to my email address will be printed, shredded then fed
to the rats. Please reply to the group.)

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
But if the contract with the rights holders only says to "show the
credits in full", then there is nothing which says they can not be
sped up or squeezed! The contractual obligation has been served.

It would depend on what a court took "show" to mean in the event of an
annoyed artist, etc, taking action. Squeezing down the credits to one
pixel for one frame might not be felt to mean "show" in terms of the
legal meanings of words in contracts. Seems to me quite reasonable for
a court to so decide, and to require the text to be readable by
viewers with normal eyesight, etc, but it would be a matter for a
court.


Well, it hasnt happened yet. And it would be no-one's interest to do so.
One party would win, but both parties would loose.

It depends on what is meant by "no-one's interest".

It might well prove to the advantage of a groups of actors, etc, to club
together to bring a test case. That way they could share the court and
legal costs, but all benefit if the case succeeds. Hence such a case might
well be in their interest *if* they could carry it though.

The problem I suspect is that the large broadcasters, etc, feel confident
that no-one will challenge them. And they may well be correct given that
actors, writers, etc, tend to be hired as independent workers. It has been
commented in the past that the English legal system is "the best money can
buy" and there is some truth in that. So this may be simply another example
of where those with money and power can exploit 'divide and rule'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html