TV license

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
IMO Freeview has been a disaster. Yes, we have digital telly, but with
too many channels of complete crap a la the American model. This thing
of repeats+1 of repeats (C4+1, More 4, Dave, Dave ja vu) is a joke. Why
not use that bandwidth to transmit the five current terrestrial channels
in HD instead?

How do you suggest funding all this?

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

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

Laurence Payne wrote:


You couldn't understand that, as a commercial broadcaster, he HAD to
prioritise the adverts over the service to you? Any hint of a system
that could be used to skip adverts, ANY adverts, would be commercial
suicide.

Yes, I understand that, but why include the ads *after* the programme ?
Do cinemas show adverts after the main feature ? BTW the argument was
with the regulator at the time, the ITC, not C4 themselves.

Do the BBC send the flag before or after the inter-programme
"announcements"?

The BBC send the flag during the continuity announcements, so they're
doing exactly the same trick, incorporating their promos that are shown
after a programme.

My argument is that when anybody plays back a recording, unless they're
mad they hit their stop button at the end of the programme, only the
terminally sad would sit and watch ads as well, though they *might*
watch the ads during the programme, rather than FF.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:01:20 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Another bugbear is the way the volume leaps when the adverts start.

I keep on reading this - but don't notice it most of the time. Of course
it could depend on the channel you're watching.

I've seen this explained as the programme and adverts having the same
maximum volume (of course) but the programmes having a wider dynamic
range than the ads. The average volume of the ads is higher, closer to
the maximum, than that of programmes. Of course, if a programme is
relatively quiet just before the ads the contrast will be noticeable.

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

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
I keep on reading this - but don't notice it most of the time. Of course
it could depend on the channel you're watching.

I've seen this explained as the programme and adverts having the same
maximum volume (of course) but the programmes having a wider dynamic
range than the ads.

On ITV 1 the ads actually peak *lower* than the progs are allowed to.

The average volume of the ads is higher, closer to the maximum, than
that of programmes.

Most ads use voices chosen for their clarity and use the finest techniques
to record them. TV drama can have whispering actors on personal mics -
buried under clothing.

Of course, if a programme is
relatively quiet just before the ads the contrast will be noticeable.

Indeed. All adverts will be made to sound as loud as they can - and who
would do any different if they were in charge of making them?

A feature film might have a very wide dynamic range - so the explosions
etc thrill in the cinema. And an ad break could well be in the quietest
part of the movie.

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

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

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:33:22 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:

Of course, if a programme is
relatively quiet just before the ads the contrast will be noticeable.

Indeed. All adverts will be made to sound as loud as they can - and who
would do any different if they were in charge of making them?


Well, it may be a good idea to make ads quieter so those who watch the
commercials have to pay more attention.

Steve

--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:31:30 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:33:22 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:

Of course, if a programme is
relatively quiet just before the ads the contrast will be noticeable.

Indeed. All adverts will be made to sound as loud as they can - and who
would do any different if they were in charge of making them?


Well, it may be a good idea to make ads quieter so those who watch the
commercials have to pay more attention.

A commercial with no sound at all might attract attention. Suddenly the
TV goes unexpectedly quiet so people look at it and see the ad.

(This would not work for the deaf or the blind.)

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

"Adrian C" 在郵件
ä¸*撰寫...
Scott wrote:
Understand the manufacturers have to pay TV license to Thomson. Is it
still valid of the patent as TV has invented for long time?


No. If you are refering to the Telefunken PAL system, _that_ expired in
the mid seventies.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/bruchs-pal-color-television (radiomuseum.org)

In the UK, the users must pay TV license ...

(another type of licenxe)


--
Adrian C


Thanks for your information. It is interesting in the detail PAL TV
history. I learnt the TV was invented by RCA. Thomson acquired RCA so they
now bundle TV license with DVD 1C as a Portfolio License.

Thanks,

Scott

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:58:55 +0800, "Scott"
wrote:

"Adrian C" ???
???...
Scott wrote:
Understand the manufacturers have to pay TV license to Thomson. Is it
still valid of the patent as TV has invented for long time?


No. If you are refering to the Telefunken PAL system, _that_ expired in
the mid seventies.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/bruchs-pal-color-television (radiomuseum.org)

In the UK, the users must pay TV license ...

(another type of licenxe)


--
Adrian C


Thanks for your information. It is interesting in the detail PAL TV
history. I learnt the TV was invented by RCA.

Many different people were involved in the invention of television, not
just RCA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television


Thomson acquired RCA so they
now bundle TV license with DVD 1C as a Portfolio License.

Thanks,

Scott

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

In article , Peter Duncanson
writes

Who will fund that.

The BBC, using the licence payer's money...

The commercial channels are having enough trouble
keeping their existing services going with the reduced advertising
income they are getting. Paying extra to transmit HD would put them
closer to a visit to the bankruptcy court

This is a bad idea? They have nothing worth watching.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

In article , Roger R
writes

For many viewers the more channels the better, regardless of content.
How many satellite receivers are promoted making a feature of 'receive over
X000 channels' as a selling point.

It's like broadband advertising: "up to" xxMBps, a big con, knowing that
the punter will be attracted by the headline speed and pay no attention
to whether the ISP's backhaul is up to the job.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png