There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and White
last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box with
scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of makes
you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
ratio these days.

However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on Citzen
pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
change the country it worked in.
Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

On 11/12/2023 11:36, Brian Gaff wrote:

> Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
> Brian
>

[quote]
A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box that
can’t record TV programmes. This is because all recording equipment
records in colour.

Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
applies to any device you use.
[/quote]

At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI
on the satellite box)

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

On 11/12/2023 11:36 am, Brian Gaff wrote:

> There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and White
> last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
> whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box with
> scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of makes
> you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
> ratio these days.

This has come up before.

Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
*anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.

It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.

BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or
16:9 aspect ratios?

> However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on Citzen
> pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
> inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
> course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
> change the country it worked in.
> Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.

Exactly. The interesting point made during the programme was that the
number of monochrome licences has been falling. Though anything higher
than zero indicates some sort of deception, self or otherwise.

On 11/12/2023 12:28 pm, alan_m wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 11:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>>    Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as
>> well, but
>> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only
>> paying B/W
>> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
>> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
>> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
>>   Brian
>>
>
> [quote]
> A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box that
> can’t record TV programmes. This is because all recording equipment
> records in colour.
>
> Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
> licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
> record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
> applies to any device you use.
> [/quote]
>
> At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
> had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
> capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI
> on the satellite box)

The original Sky analogue and digital boxes were like that. Just one
output, no recording.

"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ktojppFgvtfU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 11/12/2023 11:36 am, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and
>> White
>> last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
>> whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box
>> with
>> scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of
>> makes
>> you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
>> ratio these days.
>
> This has come up before.
>
> Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
> *anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.
>
> It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
>
> BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or 16:9
> aspect ratios?
>
>> However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on
>> Citzen
>> pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
>> inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
>> course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
>> change the country it worked in.
>> Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well,
>> but
>> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying
>> B/W
>> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
>> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
>> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
>
> Exactly. The interesting point made during the programme was that the
> number of monochrome licences has been falling. Though anything higher
> than zero indicates some sort of deception, self or otherwise.

It would be fairer if the licence rules were altered so the display
technology is deciding factor. Unless the licensing authorities think that
people may give recordings to people with colour TVs, then the ability to
record or receive in colour is immaterial if the only display technology is
black and white.

All of this assumes that a B&W licence *should* still be cheaper than a
colour one.

> BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or 16:9
> aspect ratios?

I think normally it is the TV which is switchable, either manually by a menu
option (or button on the remote) or automatically by the widescreen flag
which is driven by the broadcaster - assuming he doesn't do what the BBC do
and transmit everything in widescreen, thus only using the central pixels
for a 4:3 programme.

I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.

In message <ktodk9Ffdc8U1@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
<junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On 11/12/2023 11:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
>> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
>> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
>> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
>> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
>> Brian
>>
>
>[quote]
>A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box
>that can’t record TV programmes. This is because all recording
>equipment records in colour.
>
>Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
>licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
>record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
>applies to any device you use.
>[/quote]
>
>At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
>had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
>capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI
>on the satellite box)
>
What is the situation if the STB is only used for reception of the
Freeview and Freesat digital radio stations (regardless if whether it
can record)? Things are further complicated as most of them need to be
connected (at least initially) some sort of video display in order to do
a scan to find the stations (which will include all the TV stations).
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

On 11/12/2023 15:30, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <ktodk9Ffdc8U1@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
> <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes
>> On 11/12/2023 11:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>
>>>    Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as
>>> well, but
>>> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only
>>> paying B/W
>>> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
>>> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both
>>> are
>>> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
>>>   Brian
>>>
>>
>> [quote]
>> A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box
>> that can’t record TV programmes. This is because all recording
>> equipment records in colour.
>>
>> Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
>> licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer
>> or record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
>> applies to any device you use.
>> [/quote]
>>
>> At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
>> had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
>> capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as
>> HDMI on the satellite box)
>>
> What is the situation if the STB is only used for reception of the
> Freeview and Freesat digital radio stations (regardless if whether it
> can record)? Things are further complicated as most of them need to be
> connected (at least initially) some sort of video display in order to do
> a scan to find the stations (which will include all the TV stations).

I happen to have some Humax boxes that can be made to scan for FTA
radio, and has a channel number on front of the STB.

Only trouble is you need the TV to actually see teh radio station name
unless you (a) can recognise the station aurally and (b) you then can
remember the number for every radio station!

On 11/12/2023 14:14, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 11:36 am, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and
>> White
>> last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
>> whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top
>> box with
>> scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of
>> makes
>> you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
>> ratio these days.
>
> This has come up before.
>
> Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
> *anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.
>
> It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
>
> BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or
> 16:9 aspect ratios?

ISTR there was a switch from 2k carriers to 8k carriers and all the ITV
digital and the Ondigital boxes could not support 8k carriers?

So it would need later boxes to support 8k carriers

On 11/12/2023 02:46 pm, NY wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:ktojppFgvtfU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 11/12/2023 11:36 am, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>
>>> There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and
>>> White
>>> last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
>>> whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top
>>> box with
>>> scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of
>>> makes
>>> you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
>>> ratio these days.
>>
>> This has come up before.
>>
>> Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
>> *anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.
>>
>> It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
>>
>> BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or
>> 16:9 aspect ratios?
>>
>>> However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on
>>> Citzen
>>> pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
>>> inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
>>> course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
>>> change the country it worked in.
>>>    Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as
>>> well, but
>>> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only
>>> paying B/W
>>> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
>>> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both
>>> are
>>> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
>>
>> Exactly. The interesting point made during the programme was that the
>> number of monochrome licences has been falling. Though anything higher
>> than zero indicates some sort of deception, self or otherwise.
>
> It would be fairer if the licence rules were altered so the display
> technology is deciding factor. Unless the licensing authorities think
> that people may give recordings to people with colour TVs, then the
> ability to record or receive in colour is immaterial if the only display
> technology is black and white.
>
> All of this assumes that a B&W licence *should* still be cheaper than a
> colour one.
>
>> BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or
>> 16:9 aspect ratios?
>
> I think normally it is the TV which is switchable, either manually by a
> menu option (or button on the remote) or automatically by the widescreen
> flag which is driven by the broadcaster - assuming he doesn't do what
> the BBC do and transmit everything in widescreen, thus only using the
> central pixels for a 4:3 programme.

Yes, but not all TV sets with SCART sockets (or able to make sense of an
RF output from a box) had that facility.
>
> I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.

It's too long ago for me to remember now!

On 11/12/2023 23:43, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 02:46 pm, NY wrote:
>> I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.
>
> It's too long ago for me to remember now!

When I first got a widescreen TV (a CRT rather than LCD/LED) in 2000,
and later got an OnDigital box, there were occasions when I needed to
stretch the picture from 4:3 to 16:9. I looked in all the menus on the
OnD box, and didn't find anything, whereas the TV had a very easy way of
toggling between the two - I think it may have been as simple as an
ASPECT button on the remote.

Altering the video signal so a 4:3 picture was embedded in a 16:9 raster
would seem a fairly processor-intensive operation compared with
(presumably) altering the horizontal scan voltage on a CRT to stretch
4:3 to 16:9. But maybe some set top boxes could so it...

On Monday 11 December 2023 at 14:14:21 UTC, JNugent wrote:

> It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
I guess it will be when the colour one is abolished.
Bill

Exactly my point. The only one being passed around second hand seems to be
the Goodman's Smart talk but it has no modulator.
It also has a serious issue of losing AD randomly, and crashing due to
capacitors drying out. I have two of these and one does this all the time.
Of course those who are up for techy stuff can buy the bits and make up a
module to do this, but all to show blaack and whit on a grotty crt? Really?

I have a teleton, but its only real use is on a tv video magnifier. Even I
cannot see it now!

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"alan_m" <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ktodk9Ffdc8U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 11/12/2023 11:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well,
>> but
>> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying
>> B/W
>> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
>> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
>> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
>> Brian
>>
>
> [quote]
> A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box that
> can't record TV programmes. This is because all recording equipment
> records in colour.
>
> Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
> licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
> record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This applies
> to any device you use.
> [/quote]
>
> At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that had
> no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming capability. At
> the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI on the satellite
> box)
>
> --
> mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
>

Netgems box had an analogue modulator as well as scart, but few are around
now, most of the others could just pass uhf through and used scart to view
digital content, that was why the person who wrote in needed the video to
get at the modulator of course, which in my view made it still illegal as
it could record.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote in message news:ul7ro0$39nsg$1@dont-email.me...
> On 11/12/2023 15:30, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <ktodk9Ffdc8U1@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
>> <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>> On 11/12/2023 11:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well,
>>>> but
>>>> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying
>>>> B/W
>>>> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
>>>> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both
>>>> are
>>>> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box that
>>> can't record TV programmes. This is because all recording equipment
>>> records in colour.
>>>
>>> Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
>>> licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
>>> record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
>>> applies to any device you use.
>>> [/quote]
>>>
>>> At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
>>> had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
>>> capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI
>>> on the satellite box)
>>>
>> What is the situation if the STB is only used for reception of the
>> Freeview and Freesat digital radio stations (regardless if whether it can
>> record)? Things are further complicated as most of them need to be
>> connected (at least initially) some sort of video display in order to do
>> a scan to find the stations (which will include all the TV stations).
>
>
> I happen to have some Humax boxes that can be made to scan for FTA radio,
> and has a channel number on front of the STB.
>
> Only trouble is you need the TV to actually see teh radio station name
> unless you (a) can recognise the station aurally and (b) you then can
> remember the number for every radio station!

On some its buried in technical settings.
On portable tvs though, with these very small SDR radio chips these days,
it would be relatively simple to add digital I'd think. Its because no
market is seen for such a product, that one is not made.

There are many standard converters out there as mentioned in passing on that
series where that bloke repaired old electronics, however they are probably
mainly used in electronic museums and the like.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:ul77c5$36r2m$1@dont-email.me...
> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:ktojppFgvtfU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 11/12/2023 11:36 am, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>
>>> There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and
>>> White
>>> last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
>>> whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box
>>> with
>>> scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of
>>> makes
>>> you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
>>> ratio these days.
>>
>> This has come up before.
>>
>> Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
>> *anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.
>>
>> It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
>>
>> BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or 16:9
>> aspect ratios?
>>
>>> However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on
>>> Citzen
>>> pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
>>> inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
>>> course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
>>> change the country it worked in.
>>> Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well,
>>> but
>>> once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying
>>> B/W
>>> licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
>>> digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both
>>> are
>>> capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
>>
>> Exactly. The interesting point made during the programme was that the
>> number of monochrome licences has been falling. Though anything higher
>> than zero indicates some sort of deception, self or otherwise.
>
> It would be fairer if the licence rules were altered so the display
> technology is deciding factor. Unless the licensing authorities think that
> people may give recordings to people with colour TVs, then the ability to
> record or receive in colour is immaterial if the only display technology
> is black and white.
>
> All of this assumes that a B&W licence *should* still be cheaper than a
> colour one.
>
>> BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or 16:9
>> aspect ratios?
>
> I think normally it is the TV which is switchable, either manually by a
> menu option (or button on the remote) or automatically by the widescreen
> flag which is driven by the broadcaster - assuming he doesn't do what the
> BBC do and transmit everything in widescreen, thus only using the central
> pixels for a 4:3 programme.
>
> I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.

On 12/12/2023 02:47, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
> On Monday 11 December 2023 at 14:14:21 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
>> It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
> I guess it will be when the colour one is abolished.
> Bill

The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on to
give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly Come
Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.

I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to do
with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider unviable
(financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon do not fall
into this category.

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

Yes why don't they at least call it a subscription. Surely there are now
enough commercial models out there which have been a success to make it
viable? On free to air stuff they could just carry adverts.
Unless of course BBC started to make minority programs non dumbed down
programs and let the old rubbish be handled by other networks and you could
get a reasonable combined sub so you could get a better selection than now
where umpteen channels all re run the same old crap.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"wrightsaerials@aol.com" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:34d0dcb2-2614-4c2e-921f-3cbca658aae7n@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday 11 December 2023 at 14:14:21 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
>> It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
> I guess it will be when the colour one is abolished.
> Bill

On 12/12/2023 09:09, alan_m wrote:
> The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
> listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
> fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on to
> give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly Come
> Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.
>
> I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to do
> with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider unviable
> (financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon do not fall
> into this category.

Was that Kelvin MacKenzie, formerly of The Sun?

He glossed over that the fact that a whole range of programmes would
just not be made or replaced by very poor 'watered down' versions - you
see this already with many of the documentary type programmes on the
present commercial channels.

He did not mention the regions. Would the Scottish and Welsh
administrations be willing to subsidise their own regional programmes
and what about Gaelic and Welsh programmes - how would they be funded?

In article <ul99j0$3jtq0$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 09:09, alan_m wrote:
> > The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
> > listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
> > fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on to
> > give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly Come
> > Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.
> >
> > I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to do
> > with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider unviable
> > (financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon do not fall
> > into this category.

> Was that Kelvin MacKenzie, formerly of The Sun?

> He glossed over that the fact that a whole range of programmes would
> just not be made or replaced by very poor 'watered down' versions - you
> see this already with many of the documentary type programmes on the
> present commercial channels.

> He did not mention the regions. Would the Scottish and Welsh
> administrations be willing to subsidise their own regional programmes
> and what about Gaelic and Welsh programmes - how would they be funded?

and BBC Radio?

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

On 12/12/2023 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Netgems box had an analogue modulator as well as scart, but few are around
> now, most of the others could just pass uhf through and used scart to view
> digital content, that was why the person who wrote in needed the video to
> get at the modulator of course, which in my view made it still illegal as
> it could record.

I once has a STB that couldn't record, had a scart socket for connecting
to a TV and could modulate its own output onto to the UHF coax feed
through. Why does the latter facility make the box illegal for B&W
operation. Isn't your logic the same as saying that any signal coming
out of the aerial down-lead can be connected to a recording device and
therefore the aerial cannot be used for a B&W only TV set-up.

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

On 12/12/2023 09:36, JMB99 wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 09:09, alan_m wrote:
>> The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
>> listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
>> fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on
>> to give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly
>> Come Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.
>>
>> I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to
>> do with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider
>> unviable (financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon
>> do not fall into this category.
>
>
> Was that Kelvin MacKenzie, formerly of The Sun?

Pass, I was busy fighting with a radiator at the time and just had the
radio on.

>
> He glossed over that the fact that a whole range of programmes would
> just not be made or replaced by very poor 'watered down' versions - you
> see this already with many of the documentary type programmes on the
> present commercial channels.

I assume you have not been viewing the content of many BBC documentaries
over the past couple of decades. Many are very superficial. The few
flagship documentaries are made in collaboration with, and money
supplied, by foreign commercial channels. You may find that these are
"owned" by the commercial arm of the BBC.

> He did not mention the regions.  Would the Scottish and Welsh
> administrations be willing to subsidise their own regional programmes
> and what about Gaelic and Welsh programmes - how would they be funded?

Why should they be funded by the English viewers? Wasn't this what
devolution was all about. Why don't the BBC show main stream programs
in the other languages used in the UK. If HM Gov and local authorities
have to supply translated documents in a dozen different languages why
is the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, not doing the same?

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

On 12/12/2023 10:00, charles wrote:

> and BBC Radio?
>

Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

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

In article <ktqrjqF10p2U2@mid.individual.net>,
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 10:00, charles wrote:

> > and BBC Radio?
> >

> Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
> I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

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

On 12/12/2023 10:36, alan_m wrote:
> I assume you have not been viewing the content of many BBC documentaries
> over the past couple of decades. Many are very superficial.  The few
> flagship documentaries are made in collaboration with, and money
> supplied, by foreign commercial channels. You may find that these are
> "owned" by the commercial arm of the BBC.

The documentaries are still better than most on the commercial channels.

>
> Why should they be funded by the English viewers? Wasn't this what
> devolution was all about.  Why don't the BBC show main stream programs
> in the other languages used in the UK. If HM Gov and local authorities
> have to supply translated documents in a dozen different languages why
> is the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, not doing the same?

I was making the point that there are complications with the regions.

Wasn't there a move to reduce the number of languages supported on
official leaflets.

On 12/12/2023 11:00, charles wrote:
> which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

Or serious programmes. :-)

In article <5b11908fa7charles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <ktqrjqF10p2U2@mid.individual.net>,
> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 12/12/2023 10:00, charles wrote:
> > > and BBC Radio?

> > Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
> > I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

> which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

I doubt many would deny that the BBC does currently enable a few
desirable things like science programmes and symphony orchestras.

But these are not what the masses watch are they? I would struggle to
find more than a couple of people out of dozens in my life that would
ever watch either.

In previous years over christmas, the BBC usually have a ballet or an
opera. What percentage of people would watch that?

If these programmes are desirable (by the few) them I'm sure a
subscription funding system would be fine. If that system was free of
propaganda and political bias I may subscribe myself.

The idea that the masses and people in real poverty should be forced
to pay (with the threat of court or prison) for the production of
programmes for the elite few is deplorable and shameful.

Bob.