Law passed in USA to prevent loud TV adverts

J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, December 5th, 2010 at 10:54:24h +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Of course if everyone does this there will be no commercial TV at all.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

If there was not commercial TV there would be more than enough bandwidth
(terrestrial) for BBC-1 HD, BBC-2 HD, BBC-3 HD, BBC-4 HD, and BBC News HD

There would, but then without commercial TV I expect we wouldn't have BBC 3 or
probably the BBC News Channel ?

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

www.paras.org.uk

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:14:15 +0000, Mark Carver wrote:

There would, but then without commercial TV I expect we wouldn't have
BBC 3 or probably the BBC News Channel ?

Your argument does have merit for BBC-3, but I would suggest that BBC News
Channel is probably regarded as a fundamental service which the BBC thinks
it should provide. After all, it is the TV equivalent of the now, almost
all news, all the time (because that is the cheapest) radio station
BBC World Service.

Mark Carver wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, December 5th, 2010 at 10:54:24h +0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Of course if everyone does this there will be no commercial TV at all.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

If there was not commercial TV there would be more than enough bandwidth
(terrestrial) for BBC-1 HD, BBC-2 HD, BBC-3 HD, BBC-4 HD, and BBC News
HD

There would, but then without commercial TV I expect we wouldn't have
BBC 3 or probably the BBC News Channel ?

The BBC was appalling when it had no competition. Have a look at the
programmes on BBC TV in 1954. Boring or what?

Bill

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I can't say I've noticed that as a problem.
A PVR and broadband connection (plus staying away from certain channels)
means I rarely see an ad at all.

Of course if everyone does this there will be no commercial TV at all.
Apart from Sky - where you pay a subscription but still get ads.

The sooner the better...

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, December 5th, 2010 at 10:54:24h +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Of course if everyone does this there will be no commercial TV at all.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

If there was not commercial TV there would be more than enough bandwidth
(terrestrial) for BBC-1 HD, BBC-2 HD, BBC-3 HD, BBC-4 HD, and BBC News
HD

;-) They'd find an excuse for keeping it low regardless. How could they
sell the next 'super' HD otherwise?

--
*Two silk worms had a race. They ended up in a tie*

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

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I can't say I've noticed that as a problem. A PVR and broadband
connection (plus staying away from certain channels) means I rarely
see an ad at all.

Of course if everyone does this there will be no commercial TV at all.
Apart from Sky - where you pay a subscription but still get ads.

The sooner the better...

Are you forced to watch commercial TV?

--
*I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I can't say I've noticed that as a problem. A PVR and broadband
connection (plus staying away from certain channels) means I rarely
see an ad at all.

Of course if everyone does this there will be no commercial TV at all.
Apart from Sky - where you pay a subscription but still get ads.

The sooner the better...

Are you forced to watch commercial TV?

No, but I'm forced to pay for it through almost everything I buy.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
Are you forced to watch commercial TV?

No, but I'm forced to pay for it through almost everything I buy.

You wouldn't know what to buy if it wasn't for advertising. ;-)

But OK then. Why should I pay (via the products I buy) to subsidise the
sale of magazines etc I don't read?

But the answer is if it bothers you just don't buy those products. There
are near always alternatives that aren't advertised and are as good. But
you'll have to search them out.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Are you forced to watch commercial TV?

No, but I'm forced to pay for it through almost everything I buy.

You wouldn't know what to buy if it wasn't for advertising. ;-)

Very, very occasionally, advertising draws attention to the
availability of some useful or desirable thing of which I would
otherwise have been unaware, but mostly it is simply trying to persuade
us to buy one brand instead of another of exactly the same thing, which
can be in nobody's interests exept that of the advertising industry.

In fact, even the "notification" function of advertising is
superfluous, now that nearly everybody has an inrternet-connected
computer, otherwise known as a "Machine For Finding Things Out". If I
want to buy something, far from not knowing what to buy, I can find out
in less time than it would take to get the car out of the garage what
is available, who offers the best price and/or delivery, and -
something that no advertisement would ever tell me - the honest
unabridged opinions of several people who have already bought one.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You wouldn't know what to buy if it wasn't for advertising. ;-)

Very, very occasionally, advertising draws attention to the
availability of some useful or desirable thing of which I would
otherwise have been unaware

OTOH, several times I've seen new products on the shelf before (or
instead of) seeing an advert for them, doesn't stop me buying them if
they appeal ...