On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:37:36 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>You do realise though that, to remain legal if you don't have a licence,
>you may not watch *any* channel's broadcasts live, even over the
>internet, not just the BBC's? And that the BBC iPlayer is totally out
>of bounds too?
>
>What, out of interest, do you currently watch?

Yes, I realise all of that. I'm not sure why I would ever want to
watch anything 'live' (i.e. at the same time as broadcast, which seems
to be today's meaning) instead of watching when convenient to me, the
same way I would read a book. Even when I did watch broadcasts, I
almost always recorded them first. Streaming programmes on catchup is
much the same except that I don't even need to record them because
this has already been done for me. Anything else would be like going
back to the dark ages.

Currently I have available to me BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, STV,
UKTV-Play, Youtube, Disney, Netflix, Amazon, TED, Freevee and several
news channels. And several thousand radio channels and whatever else I
might find on Kodi. There's also a file manager app that enables me to
view on the TV screen all the photos stored on my main computer. All
with one remote control. Thus I have more TV than I have the time or
inclination to watch because I have a life and like to do other things
occasionally too, so giving up some of it would make little impact.

Rod.

On 29/09/2023 16:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:37:36 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> You do realise though that, to remain legal if you don't have a licence,
>> you may not watch *any* channel's broadcasts live, even over the
>> internet, not just the BBC's? And that the BBC iPlayer is totally out
>> of bounds too?
>>
>> What, out of interest, do you currently watch?
>
>
> Yes, I realise all of that. I'm not sure why I would ever want to
> watch anything 'live' (i.e. at the same time as broadcast, which seems
> to be today's meaning)

If you're not interested in any sport or developing major incidents
you're probably right. If you are, though, it's different.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:14:47 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 29/09/2023 16:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:37:36 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You do realise though that, to remain legal if you don't have a licence,
>>> you may not watch *any* channel's broadcasts live, even over the
>>> internet, not just the BBC's? And that the BBC iPlayer is totally out
>>> of bounds too?
>>>
>>> What, out of interest, do you currently watch?
>>
>>
>> Yes, I realise all of that. I'm not sure why I would ever want to
>> watch anything 'live' (i.e. at the same time as broadcast, which seems
>> to be today's meaning)
>
>If you're not interested in any sport or developing major incidents
>you're probably right. If you are, though, it's different.

Developing major incidents appear to be covered as well as necessary
online, and the snippets of broadcasts that appear there suggest to me
that many developing incidents don't actually develop fast enough for
the broadcasters to keep their constantly available airtime filled
with ever changing content. They seem to spend a lot of time repeating
things ad nauseam and struggle to keep it interesting. Web pages look
like a much more efficient way of dealing with this sort of thing, by
only changing things when there is something new to say.

As for sport, or anything else that might be suited to a realtime
broadcast, online streaming can cope with that as well, so if all the
transmitters were switched off tomorrow, there would still be an
outlet. It could be free to stream, or supported by adverts, or paid
by subscription, or any other business plan they might care to choose.

Rod.

Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I realise all of that. I'm not sure why I would ever want to
> > watch anything 'live' (i.e. at the same time as broadcast, which seems
> > to be today's meaning)
>
> If you're not interested in any sport or developing major incidents
> you're probably right. If you are, though, it's different.
>
Why is sport any better when it's live? I've never really understood
this.

--
Chris Green
·

On 30/09/2023 09:27, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:14:47 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2023 16:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:37:36 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You do realise though that, to remain legal if you don't have a licence,
>>>> you may not watch *any* channel's broadcasts live, even over the
>>>> internet, not just the BBC's? And that the BBC iPlayer is totally out
>>>> of bounds too?
>>>>
>>>> What, out of interest, do you currently watch?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I realise all of that. I'm not sure why I would ever want to
>>> watch anything 'live' (i.e. at the same time as broadcast, which seems
>>> to be today's meaning)
>>
>> If you're not interested in any sport or developing major incidents
>> you're probably right. If you are, though, it's different.
>
> Developing major incidents appear to be covered as well as necessary
> online, and the snippets of broadcasts that appear there suggest to me
> that many developing incidents don't actually develop fast enough for
> the broadcasters to keep their constantly available airtime filled
> with ever changing content. They seem to spend a lot of time repeating
> things ad nauseam and struggle to keep it interesting. Web pages look
> like a much more efficient way of dealing with this sort of thing, by
> only changing things when there is something new to say.

If you're happy with not actually being up-to-the-minute, fine.

> As for sport, or anything else that might be suited to a realtime
> broadcast, online streaming can cope with that as well, so if all the
> transmitters were switched off tomorrow, there would still be an
> outlet. It could be free to stream, or supported by adverts, or paid
> by subscription, or any other business plan they might care to choose.

If live or nearly so, it would still as I understand it be a broadcast
that requires a TV licence to view. The existence or otherwise of
'transmitters', if by that you mean high towers with an antenna, is
irrelevant. Computer transmission suffices.

On 30/09/2023 10:04, Chris Green wrote:
> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I realise all of that. I'm not sure why I would ever want to
>>> watch anything 'live' (i.e. at the same time as broadcast, which seems
>>> to be today's meaning)
>>
>> If you're not interested in any sport or developing major incidents
>> you're probably right. If you are, though, it's different.
>>
> Why is sport any better when it's live? I've never really understood
> this.

Because of the uncertainty of the outcome. After the event, it's been
decided, and it's a bit weird to have to pretend to yourself that it
hasn't, even if you can remain ignorant of the result all the time until
you decide to watch it, which may not be that easy. Immediacy I think
is the essence where sport is concerned.

Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 30/09/2023 10:04, Chris Green wrote:
> > Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I realise all of that. I'm not sure why I would ever want to
> >>> watch anything 'live' (i.e. at the same time as broadcast, which seems
> >>> to be today's meaning)
> >>
> >> If you're not interested in any sport or developing major incidents
> >> you're probably right. If you are, though, it's different.
> >>
> > Why is sport any better when it's live? I've never really understood
> > this.
>
> Because of the uncertainty of the outcome. After the event, it's been
> decided, and it's a bit weird to have to pretend to yourself that it
> hasn't, even if you can remain ignorant of the result all the time until
> you decide to watch it, which may not be that easy. Immediacy I think
> is the essence where sport is concerned.
>
That's 'competition' rather than 'sport' isn't it? I (used to) enjoy
watching cricket, tennis, etc. to see the skill of the players. The
outcome matters a bit but it was the action that interested me. The
modern tennis game is unwatchable as far as I'm concerned, 20/20
cricket is just about as bad, I do still watch county cricket and test
matches.

--
Chris Green
·

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 12:11:00 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> As for sport, or anything else that might be suited to a realtime
>> broadcast, online streaming can cope with that as well, so if all the
>> transmitters were switched off tomorrow, there would still be an
>> outlet. It could be free to stream, or supported by adverts, or paid
>> by subscription, or any other business plan they might care to choose.
>
>If live or nearly so, it would still as I understand it be a broadcast
>that requires a TV licence to view. The existence or otherwise of
>'transmitters', if by that you mean high towers with an antenna, is
>irrelevant. Computer transmission suffices.

Yes, as the law stands at the moment you probably would require a
licence to watch it. I was simply pointing out that the technology is
capable of coping with everything that current broadcasting systems
can do, and much more as well. We could cover all electronic
entertainment needs *including* live broadcasting, without any
transmitters at all, and I think that's what will eventually happen.
It'll take time, but they've begun switching off some of the AM
transmitters already.

As for the ridiculous anachronistic licence fee, that will require
another change, but it's not a technical one. I think it will happen
too, eventually, even though there are powerfully entrenched factions
that don't want it to (because it keeps them rich), but a growing
proportion of the public have no recollection of a time when it might
have made sense because there was only one broadcaster, and cannot see
any justification for one of the plethora of broadcasters we have now
to have special treatment.

Rod.

In article <rdpghi1lire8rukogfs9m2mqle0bgmtiog@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 12:11:00 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:

> >> As for sport, or anything else that might be suited to a realtime
> >> broadcast, online streaming can cope with that as well, so if all the
> >> transmitters were switched off tomorrow, there would still be an
> >> outlet. It could be free to stream, or supported by adverts, or paid
> >> by subscription, or any other business plan they might care to choose.
> >
> >If live or nearly so, it would still as I understand it be a broadcast
> >that requires a TV licence to view. The existence or otherwise of
> >'transmitters', if by that you mean high towers with an antenna, is
> >irrelevant. Computer transmission suffices.

> Yes, as the law stands at the moment you probably would require a
> licence to watch it. I was simply pointing out that the technology is
> capable of coping with everything that current broadcasting systems
> can do, and much more as well. We could cover all electronic
> entertainment needs *including* live broadcasting, without any
> transmitters at all, and I think that's what will eventually happen.
> It'll take time, but they've begun switching off some of the AM
> transmitters already.

> As for the ridiculous anachronistic licence fee, that will require
> another change, but it's not a technical one. I think it will happen
> too, eventually, even though there are powerfully entrenched factions
> that don't want it to (because it keeps them rich), but a growing
> proportion of the public have no recollection of a time when it might
> have made sense because there was only one broadcaster, and cannot see
> any justification for one of the plethora of broadcasters we have now
> to have special treatment.

The original justification was to have advert free programmes.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 12:48:32 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 30/09/2023 10:04, Chris Green wrote:
>> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I realise all of that. I'm not sure why I would ever want to
>>>> watch anything 'live' (i.e. at the same time as broadcast, which seems
>>>> to be today's meaning)
>>>
>>> If you're not interested in any sport or developing major incidents
>>> you're probably right. If you are, though, it's different.
>>>
>> Why is sport any better when it's live? I've never really understood
>> this.
>
>Because of the uncertainty of the outcome. After the event, it's been
>decided, and it's a bit weird to have to pretend to yourself that it
>hasn't, even if you can remain ignorant of the result all the time until
>you decide to watch it, which may not be that easy. Immediacy I think
>is the essence where sport is concerned.
>

Exactly. I go to great pains to avoid knowing results so I can watch
the highlights as if live.

I normally watch the FA Cup final live but on one occasion I had to be
out. I managed to tell everyone not to let me know the result and got
through to the evening when I made my way home to watch the recording
I had set. Feeling peckish I popped into a Fish & Chip shop and a
waiting customer said "that was a good win for United today" - boom,
bubble burst in an instant.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

On Sat, 30 Sep 23 18:45:03 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>> As for the ridiculous anachronistic licence fee, that will require
>> another change, but it's not a technical one. I think it will happen
>> too, eventually, even though there are powerfully entrenched factions
>> that don't want it to (because it keeps them rich), but a growing
>> proportion of the public have no recollection of a time when it might
>> have made sense because there was only one broadcaster, and cannot see
>> any justification for one of the plethora of broadcasters we have now
>> to have special treatment.
>
>The original justification was to have advert free programmes.

How so? The television licence has existed since before the BBC had
any competition at all from other broadcasters, with or without ads.

When the nation acquired a second television broadcaster in 1955, the
fact that it was supported by advertising doesn't seem to have driven
the viewers away. Far from it. Adverts can be irritating, but how much
of a problem are they really? Two of our national terrestrial TV
broadcasters now offer the option of paying a small subscription and
watching their online catchup services without adverts, so if you
think adverts are a big problem, you have the choice. There's no
practical reason why the BBCcouldn't do the same.

Rod.

On 01/10/2023 09:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> How so? The television licence has existed since before the BBC had any
> competition at all from other broadcasters, with or without ads.

The TV Licence was just a continuation from the Wireless Telegraphy
Broadcast Receiving Licence which does date from the days when the BBC
did have competition.

In article <ufbbbf$1fk8p$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 01/10/2023 09:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> > How so? The television licence has existed since before the BBC
> > had any competition at all from other broadcasters, with or
> > without ads.

> The TV Licence was just a continuation from the Wireless Telegraphy
> Broadcast Receiving Licence which does date from the days when the
> BBC did have competition.

Lord Haw-Haw - Germany Calling?

:-)

Bob.

On 01/10/2023 09:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 23 18:45:03 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>> As for the ridiculous anachronistic licence fee, that will require
>>> another change, but it's not a technical one. I think it will happen
>>> too, eventually, even though there are powerfully entrenched factions
>>> that don't want it to (because it keeps them rich), but a growing
>>> proportion of the public have no recollection of a time when it might
>>> have made sense because there was only one broadcaster, and cannot see
>>> any justification for one of the plethora of broadcasters we have now
>>> to have special treatment.
>>
>> The original justification was to have advert free programmes.
>
> How so? The television licence has existed since before the BBC had
> any competition at all from other broadcasters, with or without ads.
>

Advertising on the BBC would have competed with advertising in other
media. I can't recall what the Crawford Committee said about that but
there was concern in 1926 about the Charter giving them the same
monopoly over the Schedule enjoyed by the Company to publish the Radio
Times with loads of adverts and income from them.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article <5aec72a424bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ufbbbf$1fk8p$1@dont-email.me>,
> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> > On 01/10/2023 09:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> > > How so? The television licence has existed since before the BBC
> > > had any competition at all from other broadcasters, with or
> > > without ads.

> > The TV Licence was just a continuation from the Wireless Telegraphy
> > Broadcast Receiving Licence which does date from the days when the
> > BBC did have competition.

> Lord Haw-Haw - Germany Calling?

> :-)

> Bob.

somewhat earlier than him. Don't you remember the names of staitons marked
on Medium & Long Wave dials?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 27/09/2023 13:09, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 09:58:10 UTC+1, Tweed wrote:

>>>
>> The advertising spend isn’t diminishing (plus minus variations due to the
>> state of the economy). The big change is it is all heading to the USA into
>> the coffers of Alphabet and Meta. They’ve already more or less killed off
>> our local press and local commercial radio is retrenching.
>
> Who has?
>
> Local media was already waning well before the rise of internet media. Our local rag was acquired by Trinity Mirror three decades ago and subsumed.

+1
Long before the rise of the Internet we used to have two free newspapers
pushed through the letterbox. They had local news but paid for by
advertising. Still before the popular rise of the Internet one
disappeared and not long afterwards the other vanished.

In this household 99% of the time when these papers were delivered they
went directly into the recycling bin unread. I'll bet the same happened
in the majority of households. The local councils waste collection
contractors must have saved a fortune on the demise of these two
newspapers when the tons of newsprint previously dropped through the
letter box stopped being put out for collection.

This was in the days of thick Yellow Pages directories still being
delivered to the doorstep (and Thompson directories).

What may be killing off some enterprises is the competition for
advertising. People no longer have 5 TV channel to watch but maybe 200,
all competing for advertising revenue.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk