Tories propose 80 local TV stations

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article , The dog from that film
you

depends what they do with the channel i suppose - i kind of like the
idea
of a local channel that lets local people present bits on subjects that
they think are important even if they are bizarre to us. a bit like the
american local access cable channels.

or even Channel tv ;-)

Which only survives because it has ITV 1 network programming to sustain
the other 23 hours a day of its output. That network programming is
supplied at very cheap rate, because Channel's potential audience is tiny.
National advertising is also sold on their behalf by ITV Ltd. All of that
is a remaining legacy from the IBA regulator days. I'm surprised Ofcom
haven't waded in yet, and destroyed that rather quaint arrangement.

Stations like the IOW's Solent TV failed partly because they could only
sustain output by rebroadcasting Sky News and QVC, or repeating their own
local programmes ad infinitum, and had to sell all advertising space by
themselves.



IIRC a number of years ago there was a plan to set up a local channel in the
Bristol area, in fact it actually reached the point of running promos around
the clock for several months but never ever came to anything.
I believe it was transmitted from the Ilchester crescent transmitter and was
horizontally polarised?. which would certainly have been an minus point
considering that it was extremely low powered and all of the other channels
were vertically polarised!

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
I don't think ITV have helped themselves by making some rather poor
decisions in recent years, but the fact remains that commercially funded
local broadcasting doesn't seem to work any more (look at what's
happened to radio as well).

*All* commercially funded broadcasting - apart from through subscription -
seems to be on dodgy ground. And may well not survive.

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Homeopathic TV?
IE the content is so diluted to be almost undetectable.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:24:03 +0100, Chris
wrote:

According to today's Times, the tories would introduce local TV stations
to 80 towns and cities after 2012.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6715236.ece

I assume the 2012 date is something to do with the end of digital
switchover but I still don't see how it would work. Terrestrial TV will
still come from a limited number if sites that are not city-specific. I
guess you could add some new local transmitters but they would need to
transmit their own local multiplex on an additional frequency and
nobody's aerial would be pointing at them anyway.

Maybe the new service would be internet based and we would use media
players and mobile phones to watch.

Is this just another example of politicians spouting with no knowledge
of the subject?


The Roman politicians kept their plebs under control by entertaining
them with circuses - gladiators killing each other and lions eating
Christians.
Modern day politicians want to keep the populace quiet by feeding us
with *virtual* circuses on the magic box. The more channels the
better.

"Chris" wrote in message
...
According to today's Times, the tories would introduce local TV stations
to 80 towns and cities after 2012.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6715236.ece

I assume the 2012 date is something to do with the end of digital
switchover but I still don't see how it would work. Terrestrial TV will
still come from a limited number if sites that are not city-specific. I
guess you could add some new local transmitters but they would need to
transmit their own local multiplex on an additional frequency and nobody's
aerial would be pointing at them anyway.

Maybe the new service would be internet based and we would use media
players and mobile phones to watch.

Is this just another example of politicians spouting with no knowledge of
the subject?

Chris



"Mrs Miggins cat got stuck up a tree today. Someone's running a cake stall
in Sblob Road. A gang of yoofs happy slapped an OAP."


This is just pointless.

It will be as banal and pointless as those adverts they have on buses
asking, nay demanding, that the public does not abuse staff members because
it's not tolerated and taken seriously.


Then there is the distortion factor.

Will they report crime thus increasing fear of crime and increasing the
isolation of the vulnerable?

Will they under-report crime thus creating a false sense of security and
enabling more crime?

Will it be so "politically correct" inclusive as to divide ordinary straight
healthy male white people or will it be hijackable as a platform for every
local loon and nut with a cause and chip on the shoulder.



It's going to end in tears and expense.

I'd say so. If ITV can't afford local news can't see how a local TV
station could pay for itself. Unless run by volunteers.



The BBC and ITV seem to get by being run by amateurs.

And what does subscription buy you? Original content? AFAIAA not
much! Freedom from adverts? Not a chance! Freedom from endless
repeats? Not unless things have changed radically! Really, I cannot
understand why people subscribe to it.

But to return to the point about commercial broadcasting. I think
part of the problem is that the BBC is now so dumbed down, that it and
ITV are now competing for the same audience. My recollection is that
this didn't use to be the case. Allowing that with all such sweeping
generalisations there will always be notable exceptions, most families
predominantly watched either one channel or the other.

The BBC was considered 'highbrow' and 'intellectual', ITV was, though
I don't recall hearing the term in this context until later,
'populist'. The choice of channels rather mirrored the choice of
newspapers between broadsheet and tabloid. Interestingly, carrying
this analogy further, most (all?) formerly broadsheet newspapers are
now in tabloid format, suggesting that their content also may be
dumbed down in a similar manner to broadcast content.

Even the flagship 'intellectual', 'arty', call them what you will,
channels have an awful lot of crap which really has no right to be
there at all - for example, 'The Avengers'! Hell! All my
acquaintances thought it crap the first time round, let alone repeated
30-40 years of increasing sophistication later!

Media are the living embodiment of the age old truth - 'More' often
means 'Less'.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:05:21 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

*All* commercially funded broadcasting - apart from through subscription -
seems to be on dodgy ground. And may well not survive.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In message , Java Jive
writes
And what does subscription buy you? Original content? AFAIAA not
much! Freedom from adverts? Not a chance! Freedom from endless
repeats? Not unless things have changed radically! Really, I cannot
understand why people subscribe to it.

But to return to the point about commercial broadcasting. I think
part of the problem is that the BBC is now so dumbed down, that it and
ITV are now competing for the same audience. My recollection is that
this didn't use to be the case. Allowing that with all such sweeping
generalisations there will always be notable exceptions, most families
predominantly watched either one channel or the other.

The BBC was considered 'highbrow' and 'intellectual', ITV was, though
I don't recall hearing the term in this context until later,
'populist'. The choice of channels rather mirrored the choice of
newspapers between broadsheet and tabloid. Interestingly, carrying
this analogy further, most (all?) formerly broadsheet newspapers are
now in tabloid format, suggesting that their content also may be
dumbed down in a similar manner to broadcast content.

Even the flagship 'intellectual', 'arty', call them what you will,
channels have an awful lot of crap which really has no right to be
there at all - for example, 'The Avengers'! Hell! All my
acquaintances thought it crap the first time round, let alone repeated
30-40 years of increasing sophistication later!


When the population is largely becoming unable to read, write, spell or
think, and have what appears to be a mental age of eight, any programmes
without lots of stupid sounds, gaudy flashing coloured lights, and
celebs, is likely to be ignored anyway.

In an unregulated Capitalist society, people have one purpose, buying
stuff.

Keep 'em dumb, to the shops they'll come.
--
Ian

In article ,
Light of Aria wrote:

I'd say so. If ITV can't afford local news can't see how a local TV
station could pay for itself. Unless run by volunteers.



The BBC and ITV seem to get by being run by amateurs.

Amateur means doing the job for nothing (for the love of). Amateur does
not mean incompetent. And those who run the BBC get paid.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:17:46 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Light of Aria wrote:

I'd say so. If ITV can't afford local news can't see how a local TV
station could pay for itself. Unless run by volunteers.



The BBC and ITV seem to get by being run by amateurs.

Amateur means doing the job for nothing (for the love of). Amateur does
not mean incompetent. And those who run the BBC get paid.

That is the primary meaning of "amateur". However, the word can be used
disparagingly to mean incompetent. When a paid professional is described
as an amateur that implies that the person's work is not of the required
standard.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/amateur

amateur
noun
1 a person who takes part in a sport or other activity without
being paid.
2 a person regarded as incompetent at a particular activity.
adjective
1 non-professional.
2 inept.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/amateurish

amateurish
adjective
incompetent; unskilful.

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
And what does subscription buy you? Original content? AFAIAA not
much! Freedom from adverts? Not a chance! Freedom from endless
repeats? Not unless things have changed radically! Really, I cannot
understand why people subscribe to it.

Fitba. In a word.

But to return to the point about commercial broadcasting. I think
part of the problem is that the BBC is now so dumbed down, that it and
ITV are now competing for the same audience. My recollection is that
this didn't use to be the case. Allowing that with all such sweeping
generalisations there will always be notable exceptions, most families
predominantly watched either one channel or the other.

The BBC was considered 'highbrow' and 'intellectual', ITV was, though
I don't recall hearing the term in this context until later,
'populist'.

Were you around when there was only BBC1? Were shows like the Appleyards
and The Billy Cotton Band Show 'highbrow'?

The choice of channels rather mirrored the choice of
newspapers between broadsheet and tabloid. Interestingly, carrying
this analogy further, most (all?) formerly broadsheet newspapers are
now in tabloid format, suggesting that their content also may be
dumbed down in a similar manner to broadcast content.

More likely to make them easier to handle on the tube, etc.

Even the flagship 'intellectual', 'arty', call them what you will,
channels have an awful lot of crap which really has no right to be
there at all - for example, 'The Avengers'! Hell! All my
acquaintances thought it crap the first time round, let alone repeated
30-40 years of increasing sophistication later!

You must have very restricted pals. As a bit of camp it's near unbeatable.

Media are the living embodiment of the age old truth - 'More' often
means 'Less'.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:05:21 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

*All* commercially funded broadcasting - apart from through subscription -
seems to be on dodgy ground. And may well not survive.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

--
*If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.