On 12/12/2023 11:00, charles 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?
>

Shouldn't they be paid for by the people that want to see/hear them?

Just because the BBC has a tradition of paying for certain things it
doesn't mean today we all should be taxed to pay for the same things.

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

On 12/12/2023 11:58, alan_m wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 11:00, charles 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?
>>
>
> Shouldn't they be paid for by the people that want to see/hear them?
>
> Just because the BBC has a tradition of paying for certain things it
> doesn't mean today we all should be taxed to pay for the same things.
>
>

As a Public Service Broadcaster why does the BBC need 5 TV channels?
Are endless celebrity cooking programs, property sales programs, antique
sales/valuation programs, soaps and banal game shows part of a public
service remit? Much of the BBC output isn't quality.

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

On 11/12/2023 20:34, SH wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 15:30, Ian Jackson wrote:

>> 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!

Not too difficult to get a printout of Freeview radio stations. [1] I
did that when I wanted to use a Freeview DVD recorder to feed live radio
to my amplifier.

[1] E.g. https://www.terrestrialtv.uk/

--
Max Demian

On 12/12/2023 11:28, Bob Latham wrote:
> 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.

Should we also close all the museums, art galleries, historic sites etc
because these also rely on central funding whether you use them or not?

On 12/12/2023 01:55, NY wrote:
> 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...
>

It took a couple of years for the OnD boxes to implement AFDs, so until
then the only option was to flag 4:3 or 16:9 in the MPEG header, and
therefore send 4:3 programming as 'full raster' rather than pillar-boxed.

Sky have never supported AFDs, to this day I think, 4:3 on the platform
(and therefore also Freesat) has to be sent as full raster.

On 12/12/2023 02:47 am, 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.

If the government really intended to do that, they could (and arguable
would) have done it already, with an end date for the licencecoincident
with the end of the Beeb's current charter.

It is a great pity that Nadine Dorries is no longer Culture Secretary.

On 12/12/2023 09:09 am, alan_m wrote:
> 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.

Absolutely.

At the very worst, the BBC (like Thames TV before it) could become an
independent production company, selling their programmes to other TV
stations and digital providers.

On 12/12/2023 09:36 am, 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?
>
> 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.

After "Politics Live" today, there was some absolutely appalling game
show where people have to run around the set catching falling balloons
(it was so bad, I had to give it two minutes just so that I could take
in how bad it was).

And this wasn't even on BBC1 (ITV chav-lite). It was BBC *Two*!

> 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?

The money must be available in NI, Wales and Scotland. After all, if you
asked the BBC, they would insist that English residents are not
subsidising the other nations.

On 12/12/2023 11:00 am, charles 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?

Does the BBC run a permanent symphony orchestra?

Isn't it more likely that musicians are simply contracted for rehearsals
and performance for a particular programme?

Classic FM is involved with several orchestras in various regions,
though not to the extent of providing year-round employment.

On 12/12/2023 11:28 am, Bob Latham wrote:
> 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.

Indeed.

Subsidy for the well-off at the expense of plebs (and I'm not saying
which group I'm in).

On 12/12/2023 12:59 pm, JMB99 wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 11:28, Bob Latham wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>
> Should we also close all the museums, art galleries, historic sites etc
> because these also rely on central funding whether you use them or not?

What is central funding?

Do we have to pay for a Museum Licence irrespective of personal income
or interest in museums?

On 12/12/2023 12:59, JMB99 wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 11:28, Bob Latham wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>
> Should we also close all the museums, art galleries, historic sites etc
> because these also rely on central funding whether you use them or not?

The amount of money you pay for those may be very close to zero if you
don't earn much. Supporting institutions or art forms that you have no
interest in or for a fixed fee is unjustified.

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

In article <ktr81mF4a8eU4@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 11:00 am, charles 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?

> Does the BBC run a permanent symphony orchestra?

At least 4. 2 in London, one in Manchester and one in Glasgow.

> Isn't it more likely that musicians are simply contracted for rehearsals
> and performance for a particular programme?

No

> Classic FM is involved with several orchestras in various regions,
> though not to the extent of providing year-round employment.

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

In article <ktr7edF4a8eU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

> It is a great pity that Nadine Dorries is no longer Culture
> Secretary.

I understand why you say that but unfortunately with this wet and
useless government it's always talk and promises and no action except
to see how many billions we can waste on pointless projects or give
away to richer counties.

Bob.

On 12/12/2023 14:04, JNugent wrote:
> At the very worst, the BBC (like Thames TV before it) could become an
> independent production company, selling their programmes to other TV
> stations and digital providers.

But there needs to be people willing to pay for those programmes and
there do not seem any of those around in the commercial sector.

Why should they bother when they can get millions of morons to watch I'm
A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.

On 12/12/2023 14:08, JNugent wrote:
> The money must be available in NI, Wales and Scotland. After all, if you
> asked the BBC, they would insist that English residents are not
> subsidising the other nations.

They do not like to admit it but it is obvious that it must be expensive
to fund specialist programmes with a small target audience (only a part
of the Scottish or Welsh population will want to watch them) and smaller
audience for the Scotch or Welsh programmes - all smaller population to
fund them. The nationalists always overlook (deliberately probably)
that they also need programmes from the network and so have to pay for them.

You tend

On 12/12/2023 16:17, Bob Latham wrote:
> I understand why you say that but unfortunately with this wet and
> useless government it's always talk and promises and no action except
> to see how many billions we can waste on pointless projects or give
> away to richer counties.

Of course Labour would do not do that! :-) :-) :-)

At least they do not pay ransoms to the HAMAS terrorists like the SNP.

On 12/12/2023 07:21 pm, JMB99 wrote:

> On 12/12/2023 14:04, JNugent wrote:

>> At the very worst, the BBC (like Thames TV before it) could become an
>> independent production company, selling their programmes to other TV
>> stations and digital providers.
>
> But there needs to be people willing to pay for those programmes and
> there do not seem any of those around in the commercial sector.

In that scenario, they wouldn't get made. But that's not necessarily a
bad thing. There isn't much of a case for charging the vast majority a
compulsory fee in order to pay for the pleasures of a minority (who, it
can reasonably be assumed are better-off than the majority in the first
place).

> Why should they bother when they can get millions of morons to watch I'm
> A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.

Channel 4 and Five are pretty big on documentaries.

Well, Politicians are only in the job because they can do well in Bullshit
creation. After all, if you look at this new law on internet privacy and the
like, you can tell they are clueless.
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.!
"JMB99" <mb@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ulacan$3p8g4$3@dont-email.me...
> On 12/12/2023 16:17, Bob Latham wrote:
>> I understand why you say that but unfortunately with this wet and
>> useless government it's always talk and promises and no action except
>> to see how many billions we can waste on pointless projects or give
>> away to richer counties.
>
>
>
> Of course Labour would do not do that! :-) :-) :-)
>
> At least they do not pay ransoms to the HAMAS terrorists like the SNP.
>
>

On 12/12/2023 20:33, JNugent wrote:
> Channel 4 and Five are pretty big on documentaries.

Many seem designed for the American market though some BBC ones have
gone that way.

On 13/12/2023 10:46, JMB99 wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 20:33, JNugent wrote:
>> Channel 4 and Five are pretty big on documentaries.

> Many seem designed for the American market though some BBC ones have
> gone that way.

The "true crime" ones mostly cover UK based crime, which the US won't
(in general) be interested in.

--
Max Demian

On 13/12/2023 10:46, JMB99 wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 20:33, JNugent wrote:
>> Channel 4 and Five are pretty big on documentaries.
>
>
>
> Many seem designed for the American market though some BBC ones have
> gone that way.
>
>

It may seem that way but in reality it's just trying to extend the
content that would fill perhaps 20 minutes of screen time into a one
hour program. It's the 3 minute attention scan syndrome where they have
to endless repeat everything just in case you have forgotten what you
watched in the previous few minutes.

Many of the documentaries on PBS are a lot better than what is produced
in the UK. The main problem with PBS is that they tend to broadcast the
same content each day for perhaps a month before changing to another set
of programs.

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

On 13/12/2023 11:49, alan_m wrote:
>
> It may seem that way but in reality it's just trying to extend the
> content that would fill perhaps 20 minutes of screen time into a one
> hour program. It's the 3 minute attention scan syndrome where they have
> to endless repeat everything just in case you have forgotten what you
> watched in the previous few minutes.
>
> Many of the documentaries on PBS are a lot better than what is produced
> in the UK.  The main problem with PBS is that they tend to broadcast the
> same content each day for perhaps a month before changing to another set
> of programs.

The Americans have different standards, I remember someone from BBC
wildlife unit saying the Americans edit programmes for more gory scenes
and even more of animals copulating.

Also BBC2 showed an American programme about the investigation into an
aircraft crash, in a discussion somewhere it was said that they had had
to re-edit the whole programme because the Americans had used lots of
footage of bodies and body parts which the BBC would be very unlikely to
show in any programme.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 01:55:30 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>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...
You presume wrongly. The horizontal scan is fixed and the voltage
pulse due to scan current being switched off in the scan coils at the
end of every line is rectified to make the EHT for the final anode.
When you stretched a 4:3 picture to 16:9 did circles become ovals? Or
did the picture grow in height, cropping top and bottom?
I have a Freesat STB which shows some 4:3 programmes filling the 16:9
screen, and I have to switch the TV to show them at the correct 4:3
aspect ratio with black either side.
--
Dave W

On 13/12/2023 12:44, JMB99 wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 11:49, alan_m wrote:
>>
>> It may seem that way but in reality it's just trying to extend the
>> content that would fill perhaps 20 minutes of screen time into a one
>> hour program. It's the 3 minute attention scan syndrome where they
>> have to endless repeat everything just in case you have forgotten what
>> you watched in the previous few minutes.
>>
>> Many of the documentaries on PBS are a lot better than what is
>> produced in the UK.  The main problem with PBS is that they tend to
>> broadcast the same content each day for perhaps a month before
>> changing to another set of programs.
>
>
> The Americans have different standards, I remember someone from BBC
> wildlife unit saying the Americans edit programmes for more gory scenes
> and even more of animals copulating.
>
> Also BBC2 showed an American programme about the investigation into an
> aircraft crash, in a discussion somewhere it was said that they had had
> to re-edit the whole programme because the Americans had used lots of
> footage of bodies and body parts which the BBC would be very unlikely to
> show in any programme.

American Mainstream TV has nothing unsavoury or offensive and everyone
has sex fully clothed. News footage is even more sanitised than ours.
The most unsanitised stuff is to be seen on European and Middle East
channels

Subscription American TV (HBO, AMC, etc) is the other way completely.