1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

"Java Jive" wrote in message
. uk...
"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...
"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

I think that this argument shows a real divide between those who are
pro-licence and those who are anti-Licence Fee people. Those, or many of
those, who support the fee think why not pay for TV out of public money,
if
it leads to better quality and more diverse programming. Many
anti-licencists (?), such as myself, do not accept that TV has a
legitimate
reason to be funded publicly, and cannot be placed on a par with critical
services such as the NHS, education or the armed forces.

When the armed services of a country take it over in a military coup, the
TV
and radio stations are much higher priority targets than the hospitals and
schools. The pro-licence argument merely reflects this national strategic
reality.

The reason they do that is so they can take over the main propaganda outlet,
not provide high quality entertainment to the population! This argument is
even used by those who assert that the BBC is used by the government to
promote its own agenda.


(whereas what benefit do I get from someone
else watching TV?). Television, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly
about
entertainment, usually very light entertainment - and I really see no
reason
why its cost should be foisted upon me when I don't use it.

I am not saying that there isn't *any* TV output that should be publicly
funded, Parliament TV and weather forecasts come to mind; or that light
entertainment should never be subsidised (for example I support the
subsidy
to channel 4 to help it get started, but think that they should be
financially independent by now). There may also be an argument for the
public funding of its educational output (I believe that OU programmes
were
funded out of general taxation, but may be wrong). I am saying that
funding
one broadcaster out of many to provide lightweight programming to the
tune
of £4 billion per annum is non-sensical, and that people should really be
paying for this out of their own pockets.

In short, anti-licencists do not believe that the (vast majority of the)
output of the BBC is important enough to be funded publicly, however high
its quality may or may not be.

FTM, I refer you to my reply to your other post, but see also my summary
at
the end ...

I haven't found your other post yet, time is very short today but I'll get
to it later.


"I can see your argument, but I can also see the counter argument. You
either have to take the stance that the BBC should provide output to
appeal
to a fair cross-section of the population, or that it should cover only
those minority interests inadequately covered by other broadcasters. The
trouble with the former approach is that the BBC is effectively competing
with other broadcasters, which the other broadcasters consider unfair
competition,"

... and I should have added that people like yourself object to paying for
something they don't use ...

(when that something is entertainment)


"while the trouble with the latter is that the output will only
appeal to a minority of the population, so the majority will object to
paying for it."

I don't think that necessarily follows. Surely the majority of the
population has minority interests?


At least this way it's a small-ish minority who complain.


Again, this assumes that it is OK for the majority to be subsidised by the
minority for trivial things. As I said in my earlier post, I believe that
this is a fundamental difference in outlook between (many) pro-licencists
and (many) anti-licencists - and why so often the pros bang on about the
(alleged) quality of BBC programmes while the antis think this is
irrelevant.

So although compared with former years I don't think the BBC is doing a
very
good job with the Licence Fee, they could certainly be doing worse.


An interesting perspective, I find myself having to hunt for something
decent on any channel.

It's obviously a question of taste. I guess neither of us would be
complaining if we liked US drama series!


Well, I would cetainly be watching more telly, but I still would not agree
with the licence fee.

I do not share DAB's optimism that subscription would
definitely lead to better BBC quality, but I think it could do.

It might, but to persuade people, it's going to require much more
convincing
evidence than is currently on offer ...

I believe
that the continuation of the Licence Fee will inevitably continue to
lower
quality programming

I don't see that as inevitable at all. If things can change for the worse
under a given system of financing, then by definition they must also be
able
to improve back to where they were before.


But the world has changed about them. I cannot see the BBC stopping
competing with the commercial broadcasters, more or less for the reasons you
give above. With subscription, there is at least the potential to focus on
quality programming, or at least programming not obtainable elsewhere.

and ulitmately resentment with the BBC for being
indistinguishable from other channels - ISTM that this is already
happening.

There are, as I see it, three different viewpoints:

1) A relatively small number of those like yourself who watch little or no
TV, and who therefore object to paying the Licence Fee.

There is an argument for making the system fairer to this minority, but if
you/they really watch so little TV, then why not just get rid of it?
Although I've lost contact with them now, as recently as the late 80s I
knew
friends who made this choice. They viewed the box in the corner as a
destroyer of normal human interaction - they'd rather sit and talk than
watch TV. If they wanted to know what was happening in the wider world,
then they'd turn on the radio.

I got rid of it (or rather just used it for DVDs) from 2000 to mid-2005. I
was feeling left behind with references to digital this and digital that,
and things like "ITV2" and "BBC4". So I took it up again, and will be in a
position to get the digital channels in a couple of weeks to see what all
the fuss is about (of course I have seen some of it in friends' and
relatives' houses). I remain utterly appalled at the state of made-for-TV
television, but still get some enjoyment out of watching the odd old film,
or the occasional sport (C4/5 cricket!). For the terrestrial stations, these
needs would be entirely satisfied from ITV, C4 and C5. It irks me to have to
pay the BBC to be able to do this.


2) A larger but probably still relatively small number of people who do
watch TV but who genuinely watch little or no BBC output, and who
therefore
object to paying for the Licence Fee.

I have more sympathy with this viewpoint, especially if they also do not
watch any BBC repeats on UKTV channels. There is an argument for making
the
system fairer to this minority also, but no one has suggested an
alternative
that looks like it will even maintain, let alone improve, the standard of
broadcasting in this country, any reduction in which would severely affect
the majority of people living here.


Well, people have suggested subscription - why not let the BBC live or die
on that? If the BBC is effectively competing with the other stations by
producing similar output (I think you are saying that this is the case, even
necessarily so) then the majority of the population will always have the
alternative stations to fall back on.

This group merges into a subset of ...

3) As evidenced by DAB's statistical starting point, the majority who
watch
TV from most or all channels, or at least the BBC's, and who, while they
might have misgivings about whether the Licence Fee is the fairest method,
or whether it should be divided equally between broadcasters, etc, can't
really complain about the principle of being made to pay somehow for their
TV.

Again, that fundamental difference in outlook. This thread is certainly
conflating the issues of the principal of the licence fee and the
application of the fee. I am highly critical of both, but I cannot see how
anyone can agree with the flat-rate-per-household application of the fee
(ignoring those who like it because they live in a large household that
always watches TV).

DAB's statisitcs (actually the BBC's) are mouth-wateringly insufficient. 15%
of the population watching less than 15 minutes per week is hardly a ringing
endorsement of the BBC, but what percentage watch more than 1 hour, 2 hours
etc?


Until this thread began, I was beginning to waiver on the principle of the
Licence Fee, but the lack of convincing alternative proposals has
reaffirmed
my belief in it.


Time really is short.

Toodle-pip,
Arfur

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

to Real 10, which uses AAC+ (HE AAC), and wipes the floor with ATRAC3 at the
same bit rate.


I'm going to bow to your knowledge of the codecs used. I have to admit
my ears are slightly fecked from years of clubbing in youth so I'm
afraid I don't notice a lot of things HiFi buffs are concerned with.


Also if it's
dropouts and streaming problems you're worried about I could point you
to instructions for recording the stream which lets you listen off
line without the stream dropping out every few minutes.


Not that I do suffer from dropouts, but if you could give me instructions
that would be useful.


I sort of depends what OS you use, I'm assuming microsoft from your
header. I use software called mplayer which is a media player
originally for linux but I think it's available on Windows as well. You
can set up to use the codecs from your realplayer install to stream .ram
files to a wav or other format. If you can get the address of a stream
which doesn't have a .ram file then you can still record it. See near
the bottom of
http://all-streaming-media.com/record-video-stream/record-streaming-video-windows-media-and-real-video.htm
It's probably breaking some T&Cs to do this but as I usually only
listen to the recordings once on the iPod then delete them I think it's
fair. mplayer is available with a windows GUI from:
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/

Stewart

In article , John Cartmell
wrote:
ISTR the idea surfacing when I chaired the OU's NW Regional Committee, back
in the early 80s.

Anyone knowing the OU's structure will think I'm claiming to have been
Regional Director of the OU. I'm not! I meant to say that I chaired the RCC
not the RC. Shouldn't post at that time of night. ;-(

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Stewart Smith wrote:
So should the license fee only fund programs that you personally
approve of or should it fund programs which meet the BBC's founding
principle to inform, educate and entertain?

Yes, at least according to most of the anti-LF brigade posting on Digital
Spy these days!



--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
So why not change it so that they don't have to be obsessed by viewing
figures, which they currently are, and that's what causes all the
dross to be shown on BBC1/2.

Because that would then give the anti-LF people even more ammunition to say
"why should we pay them so much money when they make programmes that don't
get many viewers".

Like I said, damned if they do and damned if they don't simply because some
people don't get the concept on which the BBC was built; ie providing the
widest range of programming (www.bbc.co.uk/atoz) for the smallest amount of
money (£2.50 per week).


--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495

Alan Hope wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM goes:

And I've never seen you post on uk.media.tv.misc before,

Are you kidding me? Where was all that World Cup snivelling and
whining, then?


Oh, sorry, I was getting you mixed up with Alan White. As I now know who you
are, I'll ignore the rest of your nonsense.


Maybe instead of lashing out right and left, you need to develop
better intellectual skills.

Pal, I've literally got more letters after my name than letters in
my name, so spare me the intellectual skills bull****.

Oh right. Talk about your degrees like you talk about your flaming
victories, and as if by magic they'll all appear.


My degree certificates are in a blue case along with other documents, like
those for my car etc. Why, have you broken into my house and stolen them or
sumfink?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Jerry:::: wrote:
"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"DAB sounds worse than FM" BA, BSc, Phd (Bull****
wrote in message
...


Pal, I've literally got more letters after my name than letters in
my name, so spare me the intellectual skills bull****.'


Indeed you're possesed of such a towering intellect that the idea
of actually explaining the meaning of the terms you use on your
spam comparison website, never even occured to you.

Anyone can copy....


Doubtless you're next going to be provoked into posting what you
want others to believe to be your IQ.

Given that you're singularly unable to convince other people of
your intellectual capabilities in any other way.
snip

He 'claims' three degrees, presumably in broadcast subjects,


Err, no, they're not. Elec eng, comms/DSP and general science.


From who, not that anyone will check but then if you don't say why
should anyone believe that you are not lying...


I've already told you that one is from the Open University (the general
science one, although it mainly consisted of engineering courses), and I'm
not telling you where I got the others from other than to say they were from
good universities.


but has
yet to name them and who awarded them - knowing full well that his
'claims' can be checked...


That's rich coming from you, considering that I've asked you on lots
of occasions whether you've got a degree or not and you have NEVER
EVEN ANSWERED the question!

Because I have never claimed anything, it matters not one jot what I
might or might not have as I'm not the one insisting I'm right
because of a qualification or three...


I've not insisted that I'm right because of my qualifications, but I have
corrected your deluded view that degree-level exams are somehow just a case
of remembering facts and they don't test your ability to use the facts that
you've been taught. What that proved was that you've obviously never done a
degree, because degree-level exams are anything but the walk in the park you
seem to think they are, and they are much, much more than just regurgitating
facts.


But FYI, no, I'm not going to say which universities my degrees were
awarded from. I'll say that the general science one was from the
Open University, and the other 2 were from traditional (and good)
universities.

Would you mind telling me your surname please, Jerry? And while
you're disclosing personal information, which broadcaster do you or
did you work for?

Rich coming from someone who goes via the name of "DAB sounds worse
than FM",


I put my christian name at the bottom of all my posts, so we're quits in
that respect.


and where have I ever claimed that I work for a
broadcaster, people who do know me have never found the need to
correct any such miss conceptions so have I ever made them as you
seem to think.


Jerry, you're one of those people that gets most of what he says wrong, and
you have the annoying ability to claim that you're right even when you're
hugely wrong. So if these people don't correct your mistakes, then they're
either as bad as you or they don't want to embarrass you.


If you're not willing to disclose information, why the hell should I?


Because you are the one claiming that you are right and everyone else
is wrong on the strength of these degrees you claim to have. Either
put up or shut up, at least about your qualifications.


No, I do not want to say where 2 of my degrees are from, because that's
personal information that I don't want to divulge, just like you won't say
what your surname is nor have you ever said who you work/worked for.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
news
Jerry:::: wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
snip

We pay for commercial TV *indirectly* *VIA* the advertisers,
whereas we pay directly for a TV licence.


People pay very directly for the TV advertising that (for example)
TESSCO does, they pay every time they go through the check out, no
one ever asks if they want to contribute towards the
dvertising -
not even those who don't even own a television!


Direct relationship:

Consumer ==== pays ==== TV licence

Indirect relationship:

Consumer == pays == Tesco == pays = Kelloggs == pays == ITV for
adverts

Totally indirect. FFS, get a brain.


Consumer == pays == Tesco == pays [1] = ITV


My god, how can you fail to understand something as simple as this?? You've
just drawn an indirect relationship, and yet you're still claiming it is
direct. You utter, utter buffoon.

Let's use an analogy:

Fred pays Jack some money. Therefore, Fred pays Jack directly.

Fred pays Tom some money, and Tom then pays Jack. Therefore, Fred pays Jack
money INdirectly.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Stewart Smith wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

to Real 10, which uses AAC+ (HE AAC), and wipes the floor with
ATRAC3 at the same bit rate.


I'm going to bow to your knowledge of the codecs used. I have to
admit my ears are slightly fecked from years of clubbing in youth so
I'm afraid I don't notice a lot of things HiFi buffs are concerned
with.


Mine should be similarly fooked, but they're okay. But have you listened to
the BBC Radio Player live streams or Listen Again? You definitely don't need
to be a hi-fi buff to realise that they sound terrible, or at least the ones
that are using 32 kbps, which includes R1, R2, R3 and a few others.


Also if it's
dropouts and streaming problems you're worried about I could point
you to instructions for recording the stream which lets you listen
off line without the stream dropping out every few minutes.


Not that I do suffer from dropouts, but if you could give me
instructions that would be useful.


I sort of depends what OS you use, I'm assuming microsoft from your
header.


Yes, I'm using XP.


I use software called mplayer which is a media player
originally for linux but I think it's available on Windows as well. You
can set up to use the codecs from your realplayer install to
stream .ram files to a wav or other format. If you can get the
address of a stream which doesn't have a .ram file then you can still
record it. See near the bottom of
http://all-streaming-media.com/record-video-stream/record-streaming-video-windows-media-and-real-video.htm
It's probably breaking some T&Cs to do this but as I usually only
listen to the recordings once on the iPod then delete them I think
it's fair. mplayer is available with a windows GUI from:
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/


Okay, I'll have a play with these, thanks.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Stewart Smith wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
to Real 10, which uses AAC+ (HE AAC), and wipes the floor with
ATRAC3 at the same bit rate.

I'm going to bow to your knowledge of the codecs used. I have to
admit my ears are slightly fecked from years of clubbing in youth so
I'm afraid I don't notice a lot of things HiFi buffs are concerned
with.


Mine should be similarly fooked, but they're okay. But have you listened to
the BBC Radio Player live streams or Listen Again? You definitely don't need
to be a hi-fi buff to realise that they sound terrible, or at least the ones
that are using 32 kbps, which includes R1, R2, R3 and a few others.


Mainly radio 4, BBC7 and 6Music. I had heard that R3 listen again was a
bit shoddy which is a shame. I thought the bit rate for the podcasts
was bad, but 32kbps is pretty awful. In comparison most of the other
podcasts I'm subscribed to are 64 or above, some even as much as 192
which seems a bit OTT, especially if they are talk shows made over Skype.

Stewart