1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Oh, and I try to avoid Listen Again, due to its diabolical audio quality.
I'm still waiting for the BBC Marketing advert for:

Low audio quality

This is what we do.


To be fair this is actually "what real media does". 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. It's better to
complain about their podcasts which have as low a bit rate as they can
possibly manage, generally 56kbps.

Stewart

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:

snip

You are forced to watch commercial channels, are you?

ATM, no, but if the BBC were forced to become a comercail
broadcaster we would.

There is nothing inevitable about the BBC becoming a commercial (ie,
ITV-style) broadcaster in the absence of the TVL. It could be available on
encrypted subscription (it is in other countries - did you know that?). I
bet you'd subscribe. I would as well. What makes you think there aren't
enough discerning viewers to make the system viable?

Of course, in all likelihood, hardly anyone would subscribe to the stuff
the BBC simply doesn't need to provide (Radio 1, etc), because better
services are available free to air. But that would be good for discerning
consumers - the Beeb could concentrate only on the quality end of their
output (which is the only part of it which "justifies" the licence fee in
any event).

Not even then.
There was a time (within living memory) when there was only one TV
channel.
No-one was forced to watch it. Millions didn't.
OK, it's fair to say that we are never going to replicate that
situation again, and that television has become integral to domestic
life, but even so, no-one is forced to watch TV.

If you want to take that train of thought, there is no need to scrap
the TVL as no one has to own a TV.

The BBC's monopoly was supposed to have been broken by the Television Act
1954. But it has not been broken sufficiently. As others have said, it's
like a monopoly situation with one newspaper, broken by the arrival of a
competitor, but only on the basis that you still have to buy the original
product every day even if you don't want it.

And clearly, many don't want it. Not a majority, but enough of a large
minority that they should not be systematically ignored and have their
views denigrated just because the great and the good (or so they imagine
themselves) want to continue to be allowed to force money out of them. If
Rupert Murdoch was able to force a Sky sub out of every household, imagine
the screams of anguish.

Arfur Million wrote:


[to John Cartmell:]

[ ... ]

You really are good at patronising. After resuming telly watching
earlier this year, I have actively sought out decent quality viewing.
It really is hard to find. For BBC, most of my knowledge is restricted
to BBC1 and BBC2 since that is all I can currently receive (I'm working
on that) but from what little I've seen of BBCs 3&4 I can't say I'm too
hopeful of finding much quality.

BBC4 is a class act.

It's what BBC2 used to be and should still be.

In article . com,
Arfur Million wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article . com, Arfur
Million wrote:
For BBC, most of my knowledge is restricted to BBC1 and BBC2

Yet you find it appropriate to condemn the whole output?

If by "condemn" you mean that I am not hopeful of finding anything that
I would rate highly on the other stations, then yes. Two reasons:

- I think it unlikely that the BBC would hide their best programmes on
channels that aren't widely available ;

- as I said in the same post (nice use of snipping, BTW) what little I
have seen of BBC 3 and 4 gives little cause for much hope. One example:
A couple of weeks ago I saw a 60 second roundup of the news of BBC3
(how trendy) which found the time to include who was evicted from Big
Brother. When that sort of thing happens, you do understand why I don't
spend too much of my time looking for the good stuff, don't you?

I do know that you need to appreciate the status of BBC3, BBC4, CBeebies,
CBBC, News24, BBC Parliament, &c and not expect them to be what they are not.

--
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

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

snip

Yes Mr Murdoch you are so right, how did we ever manage without
you...

In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:
Stewart Smith wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:
(Does a quick google). OK then, let me rephrase that. I notice that you
even include a cookery programme for children - is this what the
licence fee is for?

If it's educational then yes, definitely. I think teaching kids about
real food is an extremely laudable thing to do.

In that case, it should surely be funded out of the education budget,
ie from general taxation? (That's assuming that it's worthwhile doing
on TV in the first place.)

My opinion of you is rapidly going downhill - and you started in the basement.

Do you have the slightest concept of the purpose of good broadcasting? Does
'inform, educate, and entertain' not ring even the faintest of bells?

--
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

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Carl Waring wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:
missable, or is available in other outlets. I notice that you even
include a cookery programme - is this what the licence fee is for?

So, people who like to cook and who pay their LF aren't allowed to
have any programming on their fsvourite subject?


One would be good, tens of the buggers is too much. Same with house
makeovers, DIY, gardening, insert nonsense genre.

You really are a total idiot! ;-))

Keep rambling. Then find out why "Big Cook Little Cook" does not fit
in with tens of the buggers ...

BTW The *only* options available for you at this stage a

1. Silence whilst you slink away with your tail between your legs; or
2. Your posting saying "I was a stupid bugger, wasn't I?"

No other options will be accepted. ;-)


Gordon Bennett, now you even seem to be ludicrously suggesting that there's
not many cockery programmes on BBC TV. I don't want to look how many there
are, because I'd end up slitting my wrists, but there's bound to be loads.
Even hairy bikers make them these days you know.

I didn't know there were any cockery programmes on TV - and even if you're
referring to cookery programmes your response makes not the slightest sense.
In any case it doesn't match the required template.

--
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

In article , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote:
Don't know WTF you're going on about, but the thing I didn't understand
about M-Theory was where all the 13 dimensions are - I know of 3 spatial +
1 time dimension, but I found it difficult to visualise the other 9
dimensions. If you can help me out on that I'd be much obliged.

I have taught it and found that it requires students with a flexible mind and
a willingness to dispel pre-conceptions. I'm afraid that you're likely to
continue having problems in understanding the concept.

--
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

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Don't know WTF you're going on about, but the thing I didn't
understand about M-Theory was where all the 13 dimensions are - I
know of 3 spatial + 1 time dimension, but I found it difficult to
visualise the other 9 dimensions. If you can help me out on that I'd
be much obliged.

Well, I think you're trying to visualise too many dimensions, for a start.

10 (or possibly11) should be plenty. And 6 (or it might be 7) of those are
compactified in a Calabi-Yau manifold, safely out of reach:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi-Yau_manifold.

See how easy it is now?

Of course, Feynman thought string theory was all a big pile of doo-doo. And
he may yet prove to be right; unless someone can find a way to test it, it's
not really science.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:47:53 +0100, John Cartmell wrote:

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I'm prepared to pay more, so long as the quality of programmes improves,
which I believe it would if it was subscription-funded.

It couldn't.
The income would reduce because too many people would be too thick to
appreciate what they would lose until it was too late - then they would
complain about their loss but it would be too late.

Not only that, but I think a publicly-funded BBC provides an effective
'backstop' that the other commercial channels need to compete against, so
even if you don't actually watch any BBC programmes yourself, you're still
benefiting by way of improved standards in the stuff you /do/ watch.

At least, that's my argument, FWIW.

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher, Bristol UK. PGP/GnuPG ID:0x5010dbff

"[T]he whole point about the reason why I think it is important we go for
identity cards and an identity database today is that identity fraud and
abuse is a major, major problem. Now the civil liberties aspect of it, look
it is a view, I don't personally think it matters very much."
- Tony Blair, 6 June 2006 http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9566.asp