BBC1 SD closure

[Eddie King]

Hi everyone,

recently in the evening the BBC have been spoiling the lower half of the
SD picture with a message stating that BBC SD will close shortly.

Does anyone know when shortly will be?
Possibly Mr. Carver?
Also will the closure mean another round of musical chairs, aka as
transponder shuffling?

I'd be grateful for any information on this matter..

[Andy Burns]

Post by Eddie King
recently in the evening the BBC have been spoiling the lower half of the
SD picture with a message stating that BBC SD will close shortly.
Does anyone know when shortly will be?

Supposedly March 2024, presumably you're watching on satellite?

[Andy Burns]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Eddie King
recently in the evening the BBC have been spoiling the lower half of
the SD picture with a message stating that BBC SD will close shortly.
Does anyone know when shortly will be?

Supposedly March 2024, presumably you're watching on satellite?

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/work-warning/news/hd-2023>

[Eddie King]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Eddie King
recently in the evening the BBC have been spoiling the lower half of
the SD picture with a message stating that BBC SD will close shortly.
Does anyone know when shortly will be?

Supposedly March 2024, presumably you're watching on satellite?

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/work-warning/news/hd-2023>

Thanks for that.
Yes on Satellite using a non-freesat box which is why any transponder
shuffle is a bit of a pita.

[AnthonyL]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Eddie King
recently in the evening the BBC have been spoiling the lower half of
the SD picture with a message stating that BBC SD will close shortly.
Does anyone know when shortly will be?

Supposedly March 2024, presumably you're watching on satellite?

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/work-warning/news/hd-2023>

That's going to kill recording on my PVR and additionally SD reception
remains better than HD especially on high pressure days.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Eddie King
Hi everyone,
recently in the evening the BBC have been spoiling the lower half of
the SD picture with a message stating that BBC SD will close shortly.
Does anyone know when shortly will be?
Possibly Mr. Carver?
Also will the closure mean another round of musical chairs, aka as
transponder shuffling?
I'd be grateful for any information on this matter..

As Andy says, the BBC SD transmissions aren't due to die until March,
but I suspect the captions will only get 'worse' between then and now.

There may well be a transponder reshuffle in March as a result, or you
might be lucky and they just switch off their presence on that one..
I've lost track, you presumably can't receive the HD transponders ?

[Eddie King]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Eddie King
Hi everyone,
recently in the evening the BBC have been spoiling the lower half of
the SD picture with a message stating that BBC SD will close shortly.
Does anyone know when shortly will be?
Possibly Mr. Carver?
Also will the closure mean another round of musical chairs, aka as
transponder shuffling?
I'd be grateful for any information on this matter..

As Andy says, the BBC SD transmissions aren't due to die until March,
but I suspect the captions will only get 'worse' between then and now.
There may well be a transponder reshuffle in March as a result, or you
might be lucky and they just switch off their presence on that one..
I've lost track, you presumably can't receive the HD transponders ?

Mark,

thank you.

I can receiver the HD transponders, however, living in northern Germany
in a fringe area on the extreme edge of the UK beam footprint, I always
choose the strongest transponders which at present are the SD ones,
hence my query regarding reshuffle.

For some reason which I do not understand, the weaker transponders tend
to drop out towards evening returning later at night, during the daytime
things are usually fine.

So it seems as if it's a case of wait and see.

[Brian Gaff]

Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Eddie King

Post by Eddie King
Hi everyone,
recently in the evening the BBC have been spoiling the lower half of the
SD picture with a message stating that BBC SD will close shortly.
Does anyone know when shortly will be?
Possibly Mr. Carver?
Also will the closure mean another round of musical chairs, aka as
transponder shuffling?
I'd be grateful for any information on this matter..

As Andy says, the BBC SD transmissions aren't due to die until March, but
I suspect the captions will only get 'worse' between then and now.
There may well be a transponder reshuffle in March as a result, or you
might be lucky and they just switch off their presence on that one..
I've lost track, you presumably can't receive the HD transponders ?

Mark,
thank you.
I can receiver the HD transponders, however, living in northern Germany in
a fringe area on the extreme edge of the UK beam footprint, I always
choose the strongest transponders which at present are the SD ones, hence
my query regarding reshuffle.
For some reason which I do not understand, the weaker transponders tend to
drop out towards evening returning later at night, during the daytime
things are usually fine.
So it seems as if it's a case of wait and see.

[Eddie King]

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
Brian

Brian, yes this is possible thoiugh it is a right pain in the proverbial

[Paul Ratcliffe]

Post by Eddie King

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
Brian

Brian, yes this is possible thoiugh it is a right pain in the proverbial

Presumably you don't pay. What makes you think you are entitled?

[Eddie King]

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Eddie King

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
Brian

Brian, yes this is possible thoiugh it is a right pain in the proverbial

Presumably you don't pay. What makes you think you are entitled?

Thank you for that extremely helpful reply :-(

[Paul Ratcliffe]

Post by Eddie King

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Eddie King

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
Brian

Brian, yes this is possible thoiugh it is a right pain in the proverbial

Presumably you don't pay. What makes you think you are entitled?

Thank you for that extremely helpful reply :-(

So you don't then. Freeloader complaining about something he's not entitled
to and way out of the offical service area disappearing.
Bloody arrogance of people.
Why don't you just watch your German TV?

[Robin]

Post by Eddie King

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Eddie King

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
   Brian

Brian, yes this is possible thoiugh it is a right pain in the proverbial

Presumably you don't pay. What makes you think you are entitled?

Thank you for that extremely helpful reply :-(

In an attempt to be helpful may I suggest you lobby the BBC, HMG et al
in support of a subscription option? That could allow you (and others
outside the UK) to subscribe. You could enjoy BBC services and the BBC
could gain a new source funds.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Robin

Post by Eddie King

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Eddie King

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
   Brian

Brian, yes this is possible thoiugh it is a right pain in the proverbial

Presumably you don't pay. What makes you think you are entitled?

Thank you for that extremely helpful reply :-(

In an attempt to be helpful may I suggest you lobby the BBC, HMG et al
in support of a subscription option? That could allow you (and others
outside the UK) to subscribe. You could enjoy BBC services and the BBC
could gain a new source funds.

I think it may not be constitutionally possible for the funding of the
BBC to change until the royal charter expires in 2027, regardless of
what anybody thinks, and I'm sure the BBC wouldn't want it to anyway.

However, the most commonsense arrangement after that would probably be
some combination of subscription and advertising, perhaps different
sunscriptions for different types of programmes, perhaps with some
stuff free to view with adverts on broadcast but without the adverts
online by paid subscription. Perhaps with a few individual programmes
paid for separately. In other words, what the likes of Amazon and
Netflix have already been doing quite successfully for some time. As a
paid online subscription service it could be made available
everywhere. If that happens I foresee a serious cull of superfluous
job titles at the BBC, and IMHO it can't happen soon enough.

Rod.

[Robin]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Robin

Post by Eddie King

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Eddie King

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
   Brian

Brian, yes this is possible thoiugh it is a right pain in the proverbial

Presumably you don't pay. What makes you think you are entitled?

Thank you for that extremely helpful reply :-(

In an attempt to be helpful may I suggest you lobby the BBC, HMG et al
in support of a subscription option? That could allow you (and others
outside the UK) to subscribe. You could enjoy BBC services and the BBC
could gain a new source funds.

I think it may not be constitutionally possible for the funding of the
BBC to change until the royal charter expires in 2027, regardless of
what anybody thinks, and I'm sure the BBC wouldn't want it to anyway.

I did not say anything about /replacing/ the current funding
arrangements. And I'm not aware of anything which prevents the BBC
offering such a service in addition to its current services. I don't
see it as different in kind from BBC World (which might be the vehicle
through which it was offered).

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:30:59 +0100, Robin <***@outlook.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by Robin

Post by Roderick Stewart
I think it may not be constitutionally possible for the funding of the
BBC to change until the royal charter expires in 2027, regardless of
what anybody thinks, and I'm sure the BBC wouldn't want it to anyway.

I did not say anything about /replacing/ the current funding
arrangements. And I'm not aware of anything which prevents the BBC
offering such a service in addition to its current services. I don't
see it as different in kind from BBC World (which might be the vehicle
through which it was offered).

I'm not aware of any such thing either. I think it would be an
excellent idea if the BBC offered an online subscription service in
addition to its current services.

As long as they didn't expect payment for it in addition to the the
payment we make for its current services. One or the other, not both.

A good combination would be free to air broadcasts plus a paid online
subscription service of some sort, and it would be up to the BBC to
decide what to put on the subscription service to make it worth paying
for, but if I were obliged to pay for a licence *and* a subscription
to watch online I wouldn't be interested at all.

Rod.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Robin
I did not say anything about /replacing/ the current funding
arrangements.  And I'm not aware of anything which prevents the BBC
offering such a service in addition to its current services.  I don't
see it as different in kind from BBC World (which might be the vehicle
through which it was offered).

There's an additional problem with UK channels, that the programmes are
in English, which makes them attractive overseas, particularly where
English is widely understood (Scandinavia for instance).

It distorts the market place for domestic broadcasters in those
countries, because they have bought the rights to show UK and US content
too.

Actually, English comprehension is so good in Norway, I watched a UK
programme on NRK, and it was without subtitles. You were given a choice
of optional English or Norwegian subs

[David Wade]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Robin
I did not say anything about /replacing/ the current funding
arrangements.  And I'm not aware of anything which prevents the BBC
offering such a service in addition to its current services.  I don't
see it as different in kind from BBC World (which might be the vehicle
through which it was offered).

There's an additional problem with UK channels, that the programmes are
in English, which makes them attractive overseas, particularly where
English is widely understood (Scandinavia for instance).
It distorts the market place for domestic broadcasters in those
countries, because they have bought the rights to show UK and US content
too.
Actually, English comprehension is so good in Norway, I watched a UK
programme on NRK, and it was without subtitles. You were given a choice
of optional English or Norwegian subs

In Spain many programs are broadcast with both dubbed Spanish and
original English/American audio.

Dave

[Davey]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 19:37:27 +0100

Post by David Wade

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Robin
I did not say anything about /replacing/ the current funding
arrangements.  And I'm not aware of anything which prevents the
BBC offering such a service in addition to its current services.
I don't see it as different in kind from BBC World (which might be
the vehicle through which it was offered).

There's an additional problem with UK channels, that the programmes
are in English, which makes them attractive overseas, particularly
where English is widely understood (Scandinavia for instance).
It distorts the market place for domestic broadcasters in those
countries, because they have bought the rights to show UK and US
content too.
Actually, English comprehension is so good in Norway, I watched a
UK programme on NRK, and it was without subtitles. You were given a
choice of optional English or Norwegian subs

In Spain many programs are broadcast with both dubbed Spanish and
original English/American audio.
Dave

In Portugal I once watched a French police series, starring Yves
Montand, with the original French soundtrack, and with French subtitles.
I could only imagine what the Portuguese viewers thought.

[Chris Green]

Post by Robin

Post by Eddie King

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Eddie King

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
   Brian

Brian, yes this is possible thoiugh it is a right pain in the proverbial

Presumably you don't pay. What makes you think you are entitled?

Thank you for that extremely helpful reply :-(

In an attempt to be helpful may I suggest you lobby the BBC, HMG et al
in support of a subscription option? That could allow you (and others
outside the UK) to subscribe. You could enjoy BBC services and the BBC
could gain a new source funds.

However (I do live in the UK so doesn't affect me directly) *why*
should it be difficult to watch BBC programmes from outside the UK?

[Robin]

Post by Chris Green
However (I do live in the UK so doesn't affect me directly) *why*
should it be difficult to watch BBC programmes from outside the UK?

The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK what
it broadcasts within.

[JMB99]

Post by Robin
The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK what
it broadcasts within.

And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the floor!).

What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any subscription
scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's competitors /
enemies.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by JMB99

Post by Robin
The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK what
it broadcasts within.

And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the floor!).
What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any subscription
scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's competitors /
enemies.

There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.

A fairer system would be for all of it to be supported by subscription
*instead* of the licence, and for the subscription service to be
available wherever people want it, just like Amazon, Netflix, Disney,
and all the others.

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by JMB99

Post by Robin
The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK what
it broadcasts within.

And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the floor!).
What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any subscription
scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's competitors /
enemies.

There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.
A fairer system would be for all of it to be supported by subscription
*instead* of the licence, and for the subscription service to be
available wherever people want it, just like Amazon, Netflix, Disney,
and all the others.
Rod.

I think the streaming suppliers you mention all provide different programme
availability depending on geography. The only thing they have that is
common world wide is the name.

[Blueshirt]

Post by Roderick Stewart
There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.

This kind of happens with BBC programmes that appear on the streaming
services anyway. As they were free to watch in the UK on BBC1 but people
overseas need to pay for a Netflix/Disney+ subscription to watch them...
it's just not a BBC run streaming service. (Of course, those services pay
the BBC for the overseas streaming rights to those shows.)

Post by Roderick Stewart
A fairer system would be for all of it to be supported by subscription
instead of the licence, and for the subscription service to be
available wherever people want it, just like Amazon, Netflix, Disney,
and all the others.

Fairer system on paper, yes. However, Grumpy Curmudgeon from Tunbridge
Wells, Karen Angry from Ascot and Mr Bigglesworth from Co. Durham would
surely be sending letters of complaint to The Times over having to pay
for something that was always free!

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 11:36:32 +0200, "Blueshirt"

Post by Blueshirt

Post by Roderick Stewart
There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.

This kind of happens with BBC programmes that appear on the streaming
services anyway. As they were free to watch in the UK on BBC1 but people
overseas need to pay for a Netflix/Disney+ subscription to watch them...
it's just not a BBC run streaming service. (Of course, those services pay
the BBC for the overseas streaming rights to those shows.)

You need a licence to watch anything on iPlayer, either 'live' or
catchup, so it's not free. You can watch catchup programmes on the
other broadcasters' online services without a licence, but iPlayer is
the exception.

Rod.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Roderick Stewart
There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.

Curious when the same people tend not to complain when large media corps
sell their wares country by country and get whatever they can squeeze out
of clients.

Jim

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Roderick Stewart
There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.

Curious when the same people tend not to complain when large media corps
sell their wares country by country and get whatever they can squeeze out
of clients.
Jim

The wares of large media corps are not paid for out of public money.

Rod.

[JMB99]

Post by Roderick Stewart
The wares of large media corps are not paid for out of public money.

Have they got one of Corbyn's Money Trees?

Where do you think the money comes from?

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by JMB99

Post by Roderick Stewart
The wares of large media corps are not paid for out of public money.

Have they got one of Corbyn's Money Trees?
Where do you think the money comes from?

They earn it by selling their programmes or by selling advertising
when they broadcast them.

Unlike the BBC, which is effectively given an annual allowance that is
only dependent on the number of people who can be persuaded to pay for
a licence, and not on the quality or popularity of the programmes.

Rod.

[JMB99]

They earn it by selling their programmes or by selling advertising when
they broadcast them. Unlike the BBC, which is effectively given an
annual allowance that is only dependent on the number of people who can
be persuaded to pay for a licence, and not on the quality or popularity
of the programmes.

You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product or whether or
not you watch the programme.

It can be a substantial amount of the price of the product.

The only way to avoid is buying unbranded low quality goods that do not
advertise.

[Bob Latham]

Post by JMB99
You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product
or whether or not you watch the programme.

How do I pay for Mazda adverts if I don't buy a Mazda car?

Post by JMB99
It can be a substantial amount of the price of the product.
The only way to avoid is buying unbranded low quality goods that do
not advertise.

So all good quality items advertise on TV but unbranded goods are low
quality. Is that true?

Bob.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by JMB99
You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product or whether
or not you watch the programme.

How do I pay for Mazda adverts if I don't buy a Mazda car?

Via the number of people in the companies that make and sell what you buy
having themselves bought Mazda cars. Plus the similar choices made by the
companies and people subcontracted or employed in the them, recursively.
Including the vehicles used for carring items from the makers to the shops.
Wholesalers, Storage warehouses, etc, all can come into this.

Jim

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham

Post by JMB99
You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product or
whether or not you watch the programme.

How do I pay for Mazda adverts if I don't buy a Mazda car?

Via the number of people in the companies that make and sell what
you buy having themselves bought Mazda cars. Plus the similar
choices made by the companies and people subcontracted or employed
in the them, recursively. Including the vehicles used for carring
items from the makers to the shops. Wholesalers, Storage
warehouses, etc, all can come into this.

:-)

By that extreme stretch I also pay for everything in the UK. I must
be richer that I thought.

Bob.

[Robin]

Post by JMB99

Post by Roderick Stewart
They earn it by selling their programmes or by selling advertising
when they broadcast them. Unlike the BBC, which is effectively given
an annual allowance that is only dependent on the number of people who
can be persuaded to pay for a licence, and not on the quality or
popularity of the programmes.

You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product or whether or
not you watch the programme.
It can be a substantial amount of the price of the product.

And it can snow in Death Valley. Just doesn't happen often.

Economists have debated the effect of advertising on consumer prices for
over a century. I've not seen a generally accepted answer to what
prevails most often between (a) higher prices from the advertising cost
or (b) lower prices from increased turnover and economies of scale.

Post by JMB99
The only way to avoid is buying unbranded low quality goods that do not
advertise.

And from a retailer who does not advertise. That seems to me to point
to independents in the high street - the ones closing down.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by JMB99
The only way to avoid is buying unbranded low quality goods that do not
advertise.

However even 'white pack' items may be made by a large company that uses TV
ads to promote their branded items.

Jim

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Roderick Stewart
The wares of large media corps are not paid for out of public money.

Have you ever looked at the way 'large media corps' get paid subsidies and
given nice tax breaks to make films in a country. Often paid lots to end up
*not* making an actual film.

The books "Taxtopia" by 'A Rebel Accountant" does a nice job of detailing
examples of this, exposed by his work as an insider. Well worth a read as
it may surprise people.

Jim

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Roderick Stewart
There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.

Curious when the same people tend not to complain when large media corps
sell their wares country by country and get whatever they can squeeze out
of clients.
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

I think in the EU they are trying to stop them doing that (as in USA), but here in the UK people voted for it to continue / resume.

This was how Karen Murphy was acquitted of criminal charges for showing PL footie in her pub - she bought a legit subscription and equipment in the EU. https://www.hospitalitylaw.co.uk/murphy-case-finally-ends-in-victory/

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by JMB99

Post by Robin
The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK
what it broadcasts within.

And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the floor!).
What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any
subscription scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's
competitors / enemies.

Drifting OT for the thread, but:

I am a fan of the License Fee in general. But do think that the BBC should
have a sensible mechanism for cases like, e.g., UK residents who *have* a
license to also be able to access it when spending some time outwith the
UK. Maybe this is already possible, but I've not been out of the UK for
decades, so don't know.

IIUC the BBC already can make income from selling its own programmes abroad
for other broadcasters to then show. If so, it would seem reasonable for
them to be allowed to run a service for this under their own brand, then
using the income to benefit making programmes.

JIm

[JMB99]

Post by Jim Lesurf
I am a fan of the License Fee in general. But do think that the BBC
should have a sensible mechanism for cases like, e.g., UK residents who
*have* a license to also be able to access it when spending some time
outwith the UK. Maybe this is already possible, but I've not been out of
the UK for decades, so don't know.

A ex-British friend lives in the USA, he bought a TV Licence using his
sister's UK address and can watch BBC programmes online.

[David Wade]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by JMB99

Post by Robin
The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK
what it broadcasts within.

And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the floor!).
What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any
subscription scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's
competitors / enemies.

I am a fan of the License Fee in general. But do think that the BBC should
have a sensible mechanism for cases like, e.g., UK residents who *have* a
license to also be able to access it when spending some time outwith the
UK. Maybe this is already possible, but I've not been out of the UK for
decades, so don't know.

In general not possible. Like many I do watch BBC TV in Spain via a VPN
that routes back via my UK setup. Not sure if this is in any sense
illegal as you can only buy a TV licence in the UK.

Post by Jim Lesurf
IIUC the BBC already can make income from selling its own programmes abroad
for other broadcasters to then show. If so, it would seem reasonable for
them to be allowed to run a service for this under their own brand, then
using the income to benefit making programmes.

The problem isn't BBC generated, its content they buy from elsewhere.
The owners of that would be very unhappy if the BBC showed elsewhere...

Post by Jim Lesurf
JIm

Dave

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by David Wade

Post by Jim Lesurf
IIUC the BBC already can make income from selling its own programmes
abroad for other broadcasters to then show. If so, it would seem
reasonable for them to be allowed to run a service for this under
their own brand, then using the income to benefit making programmes.

The problem isn't BBC generated, its content they buy from elsewhere.
The owners of that would be very unhappy if the BBC showed elsewhere...

That's fairy snuff. But it should be possible to have a scheme to allow
access to the BBC material for people who can 'buy a license' abroad. I
guess, though that other 'media makers' might regard that with a lack of
cheer...

Jim

[alan_m]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by JMB99

Post by Robin
The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK
what it broadcasts within.

And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the floor!).
What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any
subscription scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's
competitors / enemies.

I am a fan of the License Fee in general. But do think that the BBC should
have a sensible mechanism for cases like, e.g., UK residents who *have* a
license to also be able to access it when spending some time outwith the
UK. Maybe this is already possible, but I've not been out of the UK for
decades, so don't know.
IIUC the BBC already can make income from selling its own programmes abroad
for other broadcasters to then show. If so, it would seem reasonable for
them to be allowed to run a service for this under their own brand, then
using the income to benefit making programmes.

Do the BBC actually make many programmes these days that can be sold?
They appear to commission programmes from third parties using the
licence money but then not to own the rights, or only the rights to show
them for a limited number of times in the UK.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by alan_m
Do the BBC actually make many programmes these days that can be sold?
They appear to commission programmes from third parties using the
licence money but then not to own the rights, or only the rights to show
them for a limited number of times in the UK.

It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
does it do these days? I have a mental image of an office somewhere
with 'BBC' on the door and a lot of accountants just shuffling money.

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by alan_m
Do the BBC actually make many programmes these days that can be sold?
They appear to commission programmes from third parties using the
licence money but then not to own the rights, or only the rights to show
them for a limited number of times in the UK.

It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
does it do these days? I have a mental image of an office somewhere
with 'BBC' on the door and a lot of accountants just shuffling money.
Rod.

The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
for itself and for other broadcasters.

[charles]

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by alan_m
Do the BBC actually make many programmes these days that can be sold?
They appear to commission programmes from third parties using the
licence money but then not to own the rights, or only the rights to
show them for a limited number of times in the UK.

It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
does it do these days? I have a mental image of an office somewhere
with 'BBC' on the door and a lot of accountants just shuffling money.
Rod.

The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
for itself and for other broadcasters.

in particular: Eastenders

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed
The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
for itself and for other broadcasters.

Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed
The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
for itself and for other broadcasters.

Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
Rod.

It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
worse.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:33:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed
The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
for itself and for other broadcasters.

Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
Rod.

It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
worse.

I have a downer on the anachronistic way the BBC is paid for.

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:33:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed
The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
for itself and for other broadcasters.

Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
Rod.

It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
worse.

I have a downer on the anachronistic way the BBC is paid for.
Rod.

Currently, in a similar fashion to democracy, it’s the least worst option.
Moving to advertising or subscription will suck a huge amount of money out
of UK creative industries. It’s one of the few things that’s currently a
successful British industry. There’s a diminishing amount of advertising
money available to the UK (ask ITV) as an increasing amount is going to the
US Internet giants and everyone, including the US giants are struggling
with the subscription model.

[Blueshirt]

[SNIP]
... and everyone, including the US giants are struggling with
the subscription model.

Indeed... Disney+ now feature an advertising tier on their streaming
platform in the US. Needless to say the 'non-advert' subscription costs
more per month. Meaning you can stream TV shows and still get a couple of
adverts in them if you choose not to pay the premium for the non-advert
subscription option.

What the BBC offer in regards to not featuring adverts in their
programmes is a unique service and it should be cherished... although I
admit that a universal licence fee for everyone with a TV, regardless of
whether they watch the BBC or not, can seem a little unfair on the face
of it.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:28:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:33:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed
The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
for itself and for other broadcasters.

Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
Rod.

It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
worse.

I have a downer on the anachronistic way the BBC is paid for.
Rod.

Currently, in a similar fashion to democracy, it’s the least worst option.
Moving to advertising or subscription will suck a huge amount of money out
of UK creative industries. It’s one of the few things that’s currently a
successful British industry. There’s a diminishing amount of advertising
money available to the UK (ask ITV) as an increasing amount is going to the
US Internet giants and everyone, including the US giants are struggling
with the subscription model.

If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't that
indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can choose to
pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand will result
in an increase or decrease in the amount of money available to supply
it. This seems much fairer than a constant amount of money extracted
by legal compulsion from everybody whether they want it or not.

Rod.

[Bob Latham]

Post by Roderick Stewart
If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't
that indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can
choose to pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand
will result in an increase or decrease in the amount of money
available to supply it. This seems much fairer than a constant
amount of money extracted by legal compulsion from everybody
whether they want it or not.

Indeed yes.

We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that
myself.

If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing
round the block to advertise on this prestige channel. Same is true
for the subscription model, if its that good it will sell.

It all depends if the market thinks it's worth it which is how it
should be for a none essential service/offering.

Bob.

[charles]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Roderick Stewart
If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't
that indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can
choose to pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand
will result in an increase or decrease in the amount of money
available to supply it. This seems much fairer than a constant
amount of money extracted by legal compulsion from everybody
whether they want it or not.

Indeed yes.
We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that
myself.
If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing
round the block to advertise on this prestige channel. Same is true
for the subscription model, if its that good it will sell.
It all depends if the market thinks it's worth it which is how it
should be for a none essential service/offering.

When MT set up an investigation (The Peacock Committee) into how the BBC
should be funded, ITV were horrified that the BBC might take advertising.
There wouldn't be enough for them.

[JMB99]

Post by charles
When MT set up an investigation (The Peacock Committee) into how the BBC
should be funded, ITV were horrified that the BBC might take
advertising. There wouldn't be enough for them.

I can remember that time, BBC and ITV were easier to compare with
initially only one channel each then just BBC2 on UHF and BBC had the
radio services.

I seem to remember that ITV cost a lot more than the BBC even though the
BBC had more services and a more extensive transmitter network at that
time.

[Mark Carver]

Post by JMB99

Post by charles
When MT set up an investigation (The Peacock Committee) into how the
BBC should be funded, ITV were horrified that the BBC might take
advertising. There wouldn't be enough for them.

I can remember that time, BBC and ITV were easier to compare with
initially only one channel each then just BBC2 on UHF and BBC had the
radio services.
I seem to remember that ITV cost a lot more than the BBC even though the
BBC had more services and a more extensive transmitter network at that
time.

ITV cost a lot more because it was 15 separate companies, all with
significant production centres, (particularly the major 5 ITV companies)

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bob Latham
We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.
If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
the block to advertise on this prestige channel.

But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.

Post by Bob Latham
Same is true for the subscription model, if its that good it will sell.

For some definitions of "good" that may differ from that under your first
statement.

You can't always have the Bun *and* the Sixpence.

Jim

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the
BBC is something we love and is much needed. we are told of the
value and quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed
with that myself.
If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be
queuing round the block to advertise on this prestige channel.

But then would almost certainly influence the type of content.

Bonus! It may then become more neutral and balanced. It may then not
have totalitarian POV on subjects and may have the decency to allow
other POVs.

I may then feel safe to watch a science program about the very small
and the very large and not find the propaganda bastards manage to get
their climate change subversion into even that.

If it wasn't an activist propaganda outlet I may well subscribe
myself.

Post by Jim Lesurf
As you can see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus
removing the point that the BBCs content *is* different, and that
is why it is loved by many.

If so many love it as you say, let them pay for it. That would ensure
that the content loved by "many" continues as the same "many" are
paying for it.

I don't expect anyone to pay our Netflix sub.

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
Same is true for the subscription model, if its that good it will sell.

For some definitions of "good" that may differ from that under your
first statement.

May be for the better.

Post by Jim Lesurf
You can't always have the Bun *and* the Sixpence.

????


Bob.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.
If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
the block to advertise on this prestige channel.

But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.

Fair enough. Then maybe the people who love it should pay for it.

And leave the rest of us to make our own choices.

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.
If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
the block to advertise on this prestige channel.

But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.

Fair enough. Then maybe the people who love it should pay for it.
And leave the rest of us to make our own choices.
Rod.

You can already make your choice. Pull out your aerial lead and watch
everything via the Internet other than anything BBC. Do you hand on heart
not watch or listen to anything from the BBC?

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 11:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.
If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
the block to advertise on this prestige channel.

But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.

Fair enough. Then maybe the people who love it should pay for it.
And leave the rest of us to make our own choices.
Rod.

You can already make your choice. Pull out your aerial lead and watch
everything via the Internet other than anything BBC. Do you hand on heart
not watch or listen to anything from the BBC?

Currently I still occasionally watch something on the BBC, but so
little that it's becoming harder to justify paying £13 per month for
it when all the subscription channels are cheaper. I wouldn't have to
give up much to ditch the licence legally, and I keep telling myself
it's only a matter of time before I do. If they put the price up that
may be what eventually provokes me to do it.

I don't need a licence to listen to the radio of course, and I reckon
there's zero chance of any attempt to implement such a scheme, and I
don't listen to it much anyway.

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 11:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.
If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
the block to advertise on this prestige channel.

But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.

Fair enough. Then maybe the people who love it should pay for it.
And leave the rest of us to make our own choices.
Rod.

You can already make your choice. Pull out your aerial lead and watch
everything via the Internet other than anything BBC. Do you hand on heart
not watch or listen to anything from the BBC?

Currently I still occasionally watch something on the BBC, but so
little that it's becoming harder to justify paying £13 per month for
it when all the subscription channels are cheaper. I wouldn't have to
give up much to ditch the licence legally, and I keep telling myself
it's only a matter of time before I do. If they put the price up that
may be what eventually provokes me to do it.
I don't need a licence to listen to the radio of course, and I reckon
there's zero chance of any attempt to implement such a scheme, and I
don't listen to it much anyway.
Rod.

I grant you that a licence is not required for BBC radio, but if you do
listen to it don’t you think you should pay for it?

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed
I grant you that a licence is not required for BBC radio, but if you do
listen to it don’t you think you should pay for it?

Why? Nobody is asking me to pay for it.

Rod.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 11:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed
You can already make your choice. Pull out your aerial lead and watch
everything via the Internet other than anything BBC. Do you hand on heart
not watch or listen to anything from the BBC?

Currently I still occasionally watch something on the BBC, but so
little that it's becoming harder to justify paying £13 per month for
it when all the subscription channels are cheaper. I wouldn't have to
give up much to ditch the licence legally, and I keep telling myself
it's only a matter of time before I do. If they put the price up that
may be what eventually provokes me to do it.

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?

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:28:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:33:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed
The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
for itself and for other broadcasters.

Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
Rod.

It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
worse.

I have a downer on the anachronistic way the BBC is paid for.
Rod.

Currently, in a similar fashion to democracy, it’s the least worst option.
Moving to advertising or subscription will suck a huge amount of money out
of UK creative industries. It’s one of the few things that’s currently a
successful British industry. There’s a diminishing amount of advertising
money available to the UK (ask ITV) as an increasing amount is going to the
US Internet giants and everyone, including the US giants are struggling
with the subscription model.

If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't that
indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can choose to
pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand will result
in an increase or decrease in the amount of money available to supply
it. This seems much fairer than a constant amount of money extracted
by legal compulsion from everybody whether they want it or not.
Rod.

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.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:28:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

SNIP

Post by Tweed
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.

In many other case it is just consolidation - The Times is now mostly online and a web site can hold far more information, including more local information, and be kept more up to date than a printed paper (notwithstanding the 1,000_ pages of the New York Times in the 80's).

Of course media companies do not always help themselves - for instance we used to take the Times, but James Murdoch decided that even if you bought a paper copy then you would have to pay again to access the online copy the same day - so now I don't buy either. Similarly Trinity Mirror sites are absolutely plagued with pop ups, response boxes and other Java tricks making the frenetic site almost not worth using unless you have a very good reason (e.g. local public transport break down).

[JMB99]

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. In many other case it is just consolidation - The Times is
now mostly online and a web site can hold far more information,
including more local information, and be kept more up to date than a
printed paper (notwithstanding the 1,000_ pages of the New York Times in
the 80's). Of course media companies do not always help themselves - for
instance we used to take the Times, but James Murdoch decided that even
if you bought a paper copy then you would have to pay again to access
the online copy the same day - so now I don't buy either. Similarly
Trinity Mirror sites are absolutely plagued with pop ups, response boxes
and other Java tricks making the frenetic site almost not worth using
unless you have a very good reason (e.g. local public transport break down).

I thought local newspapers tried to blame the BBC for the drop in
circulation which resulted in some cooperation with BBC Local Radio.

But their main problem was online advertising which was in its infancy
but a whole range of things were already being mainly advertised online.

[Tweed]

Post by JMB99

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. In many other case it is just consolidation - The Times is
now mostly online and a web site can hold far more information,
including more local information, and be kept more up to date than a
printed paper (notwithstanding the 1,000_ pages of the New York Times in
the 80's). Of course media companies do not always help themselves - for
instance we used to take the Times, but James Murdoch decided that even
if you bought a paper copy then you would have to pay again to access
the online copy the same day - so now I don't buy either. Similarly
Trinity Mirror sites are absolutely plagued with pop ups, response boxes
and other Java tricks making the frenetic site almost not worth using
unless you have a very good reason (e.g. local public transport break down).

I thought local newspapers tried to blame the BBC for the drop in
circulation which resulted in some cooperation with BBC Local Radio.
But their main problem was online advertising which was in its infancy
but a whole range of things were already being mainly advertised online.

Exactly, my point is the online advertising has all gone to USA based
outfits. Vast sums are being sucked out of the UK daily.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Tweed
Exactly, my point is the online advertising has all gone to USA based
outfits. Vast sums are being sucked out of the UK daily.

Big internet+content companies spring to mind here...

Jim

[SH]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:28:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

SNIP

Post by Tweed
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.
In many other case it is just consolidation - The Times is now mostly online and a web site can hold far more information, including more local information, and be kept more up to date than a printed paper (notwithstanding the 1,000_ pages of the New York Times in the 80's).
Of course media companies do not always help themselves - for instance we used to take the Times, but James Murdoch decided that even if you bought a paper copy then you would have to pay again to access the online copy the same day - so now I don't buy either. Similarly Trinity Mirror sites are absolutely plagued with pop ups, response boxes and other Java tricks making the frenetic site almost not worth using unless you have a very good reason (e.g. local public transport break down).

Setting up your own DNS solves the plague of popups, response boxes etc
and also NoScript add on

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Roderick Stewart
If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't that
indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can choose to
pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand will result in
an increase or decrease in the amount of money available to supply it.
This seems much fairer than a constant amount of money extracted by
legal compulsion from everybody whether they want it or not.

"As long as..." and "can" don't always return TRUE in mere reality.

Jim

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 08:53:13 +0100, Roderick Stewart

Post by Roderick Stewart
If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't that
indicate a diminishing demand for it?

Not necessarily. It just indicates that there are more freeloaders
who want to get something for nothing off the backs of other people
who don't do that.
See also: the rampant rise in shoplifting as reported by the media.

You have such a simplistic shallow view of things.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart

Post by Roderick Stewart
It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
does it do these days?

The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:31:35 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart

Post by Roderick Stewart
It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
does it do these days?

The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.

I'm not ignoring Channel 4. It's simply not relevant to what I was
talking about. I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch
either its programmes or anybody else's. There has never been any
suggestion that Channel 4 is some sort of public service that we
should all pay for whether we want it or not.

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:31:35 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart

Post by Roderick Stewart
It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
does it do these days?

The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.

I'm not ignoring Channel 4. It's simply not relevant to what I was
talking about. I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch
either its programmes or anybody else's. There has never been any
suggestion that Channel 4 is some sort of public service that we
should all pay for whether we want it or not.
Rod.

We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income doesn’t
come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.

[Woody]

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:31:35 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart

Post by Roderick Stewart
It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
does it do these days?

The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.

I'm not ignoring Channel 4. It's simply not relevant to what I was
talking about. I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch
either its programmes or anybody else's. There has never been any
suggestion that Channel 4 is some sort of public service that we
should all pay for whether we want it or not.
Rod.

We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income doesn’t
come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.

Actually, part of the licence fee goes to support Ch4.

[Tweed]

Post by Woody

Post by Tweed

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:31:35 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart

Post by Roderick Stewart
It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
does it do these days?

The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.

I'm not ignoring Channel 4. It's simply not relevant to what I was
talking about. I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch
either its programmes or anybody else's. There has never been any
suggestion that Channel 4 is some sort of public service that we
should all pay for whether we want it or not.
Rod.

We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income doesn’t
come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.

Actually, part of the licence fee goes to support Ch4.

Are you sure? S4C yes, but I don’t think Ch4 gets anything.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Tweed

Post by Woody
Actually, part of the licence fee goes to support Ch4.

Are you sure? S4C yes, but I don’t think Ch4 gets anything.

C4 has never received a penny of licence fee money.

In fact they were so fed up with Woody et al spreading the urban myth
that they do, that there was once a FAQ on their corporate website
stating as such.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Mark Carver
C4 has never received a penny of licence fee money.

It did come close to getting a few million though ...

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7750501.stm>

[Paul Ratcliffe]

Post by Woody

We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income doesn???t
come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.

Actually, part of the licence fee goes to support Ch4.

No it doesn't. Channel 4 doesn't receive any public money.
Have you been listening to that Dopey bitch Dorries?

[JMB99]

Post by Tweed
We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income
doesn’t come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.

People moan about what people like Lineker get from the BBC but the
'stars' on ITV and Channel get paid far more and I don't think they have
to disclose how much unlike the BBC.

[JMB99]

I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch either its
programmes or anybody else's.

You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!

Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund anything.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by JMB99

I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch either its
programmes or anybody else's.

You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund anything.

We can choose what goods we buy.

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by JMB99

I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch either its
programmes or anybody else's.

You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund anything.

We can choose what goods we buy.
Rod.

Which supermarket do you use that doesn’t pay for TV adverts?

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by JMB99
You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund anything.

We can choose what goods we buy.

It becomes difficult to live without food, etc, though. Many also find they
'need' things like, e,g, a car, as well. And when you buy things that
*aren't* advertised on TV the people who supplied it may need to buy from
companies that *do* advertise on TV. Even if you choose a retailer that
doesn't buy TV ads, their suppliers, etc, might.

So choosing what you buy may not mean you find it easy to not pay anything
towards the ad biz and its TV arm.

Jim

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by JMB99
You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund anything.

We can choose what goods we buy.

It becomes difficult to live without food, etc, though.

Indeed, would mind telling the idiots that want to stop farming that
please. Thanks.

Post by Jim Lesurf
Many also find they 'need' things like, e,g, a car, as well. And
when you buy things that *aren't* advertised on TV the people who
supplied it may need to buy from companies that *do* advertise on
TV. Even if you choose a retailer that doesn't buy TV ads, their
suppliers, etc, might.

Stretching again Jim, your argument is beginning to look a bit
desperate.

Bob.

[Robin]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by JMB99
You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund anything.

We can choose what goods we buy.

It becomes difficult to live without food, etc, though.

Indeed, would mind telling the idiots that want to stop farming that
please. Thanks.

Post by Jim Lesurf
Many also find they 'need' things like, e,g, a car, as well. And
when you buy things that *aren't* advertised on TV the people who
supplied it may need to buy from companies that *do* advertise on
TV. Even if you choose a retailer that doesn't buy TV ads, their
suppliers, etc, might.

Stretching again Jim, your argument is beginning to look a bit
desperate.

OTOH we know it's possible for an economy to operate without commercial
advertising. North Korea's does.

[JMB99]

Post by Robin
OTOH we know it's possible for an economy to operate without commercial
advertising. North Korea's does.

It has happened in the UK during strikes, I don't think it affected sales.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
Brian

ATM BBC channels on the internet only ask if you have a TV license, but pretty soon I guess they will start asking for the number.

SNIP

Post by Brian Gaff

Post by Eddie King
For some reason which I do not understand, the weaker transponders tend to
drop out towards evening returning later at night, during the daytime
things are usually fine.

Solar activity in the ionosphere probably.

Post by Brian Gaff

Post by Eddie King
So it seems as if it's a case of wait and see.

[Robin]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
Brian

ATM BBC channels on the internet only ask if you have a TV license, but pretty soon I guess they will start asking for the number.

Not so simple outside the UK. And a commercial UK VPN server is not a
guaranteed solution.

[JMB99]

Not so simple outside the UK.  And a commercial UK VPN server is not a
guaranteed solution.

A friend in the USA has a TV Licence using his sister's UK address so
can watch iPLayer etc.

[Andy Burns]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
ATM BBC channels on the internet only ask if you have a TV license,
but pretty soon I guess they will start asking for the number.

I wish they would, then they could stop asking whether I have one, and
while they're at it they could stop asking if I want to enable a PIN to
block non child-friendly programmes.

[Jeff Layman]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by R. Mark Clayton
ATM BBC channels on the internet only ask if you have a TV license,
but pretty soon I guess they will start asking for the number.

I wish they would, then they could stop asking whether I have one, and
while they're at it they could stop asking if I want to enable a PIN to
block non child-friendly programmes.

+1

On that subject (sort of), if I go straight to the iPlayer app on my TV,
it asks me if it's for me (or someone else if there are others who have
an ID? I'm the only one who has a BBC account). However, if I press the
green button while watching live it goes straight to the iPlayer
programme without checking if it's me watching. I suppose it makes some
sort of sense, but if while watching iPlayer I press the back/return
button I get to the general iPlayer screen where anything can be chosen.

So why does it assume it's me when I get to iPlayer via the green
button, but asks who it is when I get to it via the iPlayer app?

[alan_m]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Brian Gaff
Can you not get it on the Internet instead? I'm sure I read that this was
possible through a proxy of some sort.
Brian

ATM BBC channels on the internet only ask if you have a TV license, but pretty soon I guess they will start asking for the number.

I'm sure what will follow is a large number of licence identities being
published on the web.

[Brian Gaff]

Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd suspect
freeview might be in the sights next.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Eddie King

Post by Eddie King
Hi everyone,
recently in the evening the BBC have been spoiling the lower half of the
SD picture with a message stating that BBC SD will close shortly.
Does anyone know when shortly will be?
Possibly Mr. Carver?
Also will the closure mean another round of musical chairs, aka as
transponder shuffling?
I'd be grateful for any information on this matter..

As Andy says, the BBC SD transmissions aren't due to die until March, but
I suspect the captions will only get 'worse' between then and now.
There may well be a transponder reshuffle in March as a result, or you
might be lucky and they just switch off their presence on that one..
I've lost track, you presumably can't receive the HD transponders ?

Mark,
thank you.
I can receiver the HD transponders, however, living in northern Germany in
a fringe area on the extreme edge of the UK beam footprint, I always
choose the strongest transponders which at present are the SD ones, hence
my query regarding reshuffle.
For some reason which I do not understand, the weaker transponders tend to
drop out towards evening returning later at night, during the daytime
things are usually fine.
So it seems as if it's a case of wait and see.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Brian Gaff
Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd suspect
freeview might be in the sights next.

Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
receivers are now HD ?

[Blueshirt]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Brian Gaff
Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd
suspect freeview might be in the sights next.

Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
receivers are now HD ?

I didn't even know the BBC bothered with an SD version of BBC1 until this
thread!

[Tweed]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Brian Gaff
Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd suspect
freeview might be in the sights next.

Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
receivers are now HD ?

Mutter mutter, still sore that my 405 line TV receives no signal. Throwing
away a perfectly good TV, who needs this colour stuff? Don’t see the point
of these extra lines, mutter mutter….l

[Java Jive]

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Brian Gaff
Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd suspect
freeview might be in the sights next.

Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
receivers are now HD ?

Mutter mutter, still sore that my 405 line TV receives no signal. Throwing
away a perfectly good TV, who needs this colour stuff? Don’t see the point
of these extra lines, mutter mutter….l

Mutter mutter, why do you need a new-fangled picture? I was always
happy with my long-wave radio!

[Tweed]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Brian Gaff
Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd suspect
freeview might be in the sights next.

Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
receivers are now HD ?

Mutter mutter, still sore that my 405 line TV receives no signal. Throwing
away a perfectly good TV, who needs this colour stuff? Don’t see the point
of these extra lines, mutter mutter….l

Mutter mutter, why do you need a new-fangled picture? I was always
happy with my long-wave radio!

.... . .-. . / .. ... / - .... . / -. . .-- ...