BBC may shut some digital services after switchover.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:42:43 -0000, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:


"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:41:35 -0000, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:


on the rare occasion i've heard radio 7, i've got the distinct impression
i
was actually listening to an old tv show with audio only - is it my
imagination or is that actually what they do?

Not as far as I know. The style is that of radio before TV. The style
persisted after TV became what it is today. There were often studio
audiences for radio comedy shows so the performers were to some extent
performing to that audience as much as to the listeners.





in this case it was ever decreasing circles - was that ever a radio show?

Not as far as I know.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On 29 Nov, 18:42, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:41:35 -0000, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:

on the rare occasion i've heard radio 7, i've got the distinct impression
i
was actually listening to an old tv show with audio only - is it my
imagination or is that actually what they do?

Not as far as I know. The style is that of radio before TV. The style
persisted after TV became what it is today. There were often studio
audiences for radio comedy shows so the performers were to some extent
performing to that audience as much as to the listeners.

in this case it was ever decreasing circles - was that ever a radio show?

--
Gareth.


Radio 7 has also played a version of 'Dad's Army', which was
especially made for radio with the original actors in the 1970's, and
then there was 'Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy' which was originally
a radio series in 1978, but was followed by a TV series with the same
script.

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:03:51 +0000, Zathras wrote:

At some point, the pips must squeak, the bubble burst. Maybe this is
just the first shot across the bows..

It is all part of the payback to Murdoch for helping to get Cameron elected.

On 29 Nov, 18:09, Martin Jay wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:10:17 +0000, johnwright ""john\"@no spam





here.com" wrote:
Martin Jay wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:42:53 +0000, johnwright ""john\"@no spam
here.com" wrote:
Consider that the licence fee tends to be less per month than just about
the cheapest subscription to Sky TV. For which you get some channels all
with adverts.
Peoples' tastes have changed.

Many used to complain about adverts, too many US imports and repeats
on TV.

People now pay--specifically for US imports and repeats--to watch such
things.
Taste is largely irrelevant. Its the proportion of what comes out of the
viewers pocket and what comes from advertisers that in the context of
Sky has changed.

If what viewers want hasn't changed, we have to accept that before
subscription TV came along viewers weren't being given what they
wanted.

Subscription TV is largely repeats and US programming, so, presumably,
that's what people want. *As you mention, they're certainly willing to
pay a premium for it.

I don't believe that's _all_ people want.

If the tables were reversed, and "free" TV consisted of repeats and US
programming, while "pay" TV consisted of the entire BBC, ITV, CH4, and
five stable of programming, I'm guessing "pay" TV would be pretty
healthy.

Which, by your argument, would prove _that's_ what people want.


Not everyone has Sky you know.

And, as someone persevering with Freesat, I can tell you that getting
Sky is probably the only way to ensure you have access to _all_ the
_BBC_ programming that's available. I suspect many hundreds of
thousands of people, if not millions, have it mainly or exclusively
for the "PSB" channels - many might think the extra content is junk -
but (especially if you can't get Freeview) the extra functionality of
Sky and Sky+ is genuinely valuable to many.

Cheers,
David.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:16:00 +0100, J G Miller
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:03:51 +0000, Zathras wrote:

At some point, the pips must squeak, the bubble burst. Maybe this is
just the first shot across the bows..

It is all part of the payback to Murdoch for helping to get Cameron elected.

Nah..this has been heading toward a crunch since Cameron was at
school.

--
Z

wrote:
snip
And, as someone persevering with Freesat, I can tell you that getting
Sky is probably the only way to ensure you have access to _all_ the
_BBC_ programming that's available. I suspect many hundreds of
thousands of people, if not millions, have it mainly or exclusively
for the "PSB" channels - many might think the extra content is junk -
but (especially if you can't get Freeview) the extra functionality of
Sky and Sky+ is genuinely valuable to many.

Just out of curiosity, what BBC programming is available via Sky but not
Freesat?
--
^..^ This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:51:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

How many of those "hundreds of channels" do Sky actually produce the
orginal output themselves rather than just provide bandwidth, resell
or transmit repeats. Sky 1 & 2, Sky Sports 1 - 3, Sky Sports News?
not sure if that is FTV as Sky 3 or Sky News are.

Doesn't matter whether they produce the output themselves - that
doesn't matter one jot to viewers. What matters is the hundreds of
channels that they pay for, irrespective of who owns or produces them.


--

Adrian wrote:
wrote:
snip
And, as someone persevering with Freesat, I can tell you that getting
Sky is probably the only way to ensure you have access to _all_ the
_BBC_ programming that's available. I suspect many hundreds of
thousands of people, if not millions, have it mainly or exclusively
for the "PSB" channels - many might think the extra content is junk -
but (especially if you can't get Freeview) the extra functionality of
Sky and Sky+ is genuinely valuable to many.

Just out of curiosity, what BBC programming is available via Sky but not
Freesat?

Some of the red button services. (If you mean 'BBC/ITV' Freesat)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:11:49 +0000, Mike Henry
wrote:

Ok if the channels they are paying for is what counts - in that case, bear
in mind that are large number of channels on the Sky platform aren't
"channels you pay for" because they are Free To Air.

I'm aware of that. Which is why I used the words you quoted from my
message, "channels you pay for" rather than the words which you chose
to use, "channels on the Sky platform".

A lot of people think they are paying for channels which are actually
amongst the 363 Free channels, which makes them believe that "Sky" is
better value than it really is.

As I said, I'm referring to the 50-200 subscription channels which you
get for your £18-£55 per month.
--

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:34:33 +0000, Paul Martin
wrote:

In article ,
alexander.keys1 wrote:

then there was 'Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy' which was originally
a radio series in 1978, but was followed by a TV series with the same
script.

Not *quite* the same script.

Hagunenons (radio) versus Disaster Area (TV).

Douglas Adams was quite happy changing the storyline. AFAIK he
approved the changes for the feature film too.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]