A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

New TV channel for BBC in Scotland



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old February 25th 17, 06:01 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,676
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

On 25/02/2017 11:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:27:17 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:



You usually can't tell whether a programme is worth watching until
you've started watching it, and they won't give you your money back if
you think it's rubbish. This is why I think subscription is a better way
to pay for programmes than per programme.


You can't tell this with books either, but the usual practice of
paying for them individually has been perfectly satisfactory since
long before the invention of television.


Logical fallacy. Something has been imperfect so nothing new need be better.

Bill

  #42  
Old February 25th 17, 10:09 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,003
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 19:01:53 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:


You usually can't tell whether a programme is worth watching until
you've started watching it, and they won't give you your money back if
you think it's rubbish. This is why I think subscription is a better way
to pay for programmes than per programme.


You can't tell this with books either, but the usual practice of
paying for them individually has been perfectly satisfactory since
long before the invention of television.


Logical fallacy. Something has been imperfect so nothing new need be better.


In this case the new thing isn't any better. In fact it's worse. I'm
adopting a definition of "better" that means more freedom of choice,
which seems a reasonable one to me.

Rod.
  #43  
Old February 25th 17, 10:13 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 174
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 10:22:50 UTC, David Kennedy wrote:
No. You won't. That's part of their grievance - and part of my reply. Most of
the Scottish license fee is spent topping up English programming...


But people in Scotland *like* English programming.

A key part of the Independence Referendum was the promise that an independent Scotland would still be able to watch EastEnders (because people in Belgium can, apparently).

They'd much rather watch pointless celebrities (or Pointless Celebrities) than Morag reminiscing about the year the electricity came to Glenshuggle followed by the great Scottish stovie cook-off.

Owain



  #44  
Old February 26th 17, 01:10 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,676
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

On 25/02/2017 23:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:

You can't tell this with books either, but the usual practice of
paying for them individually has been perfectly satisfactory since
long before the invention of television.


Logical fallacy. Something has been imperfect so nothing new need be better.


In this case the new thing isn't any better. In fact it's worse. I'm
adopting a definition of "better" that means more freedom of choice,
which seems a reasonable one to me.

Rod.


Logical fallacy.You have set the criterion to suit your argument. There
are other criteria that need to be considered.

Bill
  #45  
Old February 26th 17, 08:24 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,003
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 02:10:54 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

You can't tell this with books either, but the usual practice of
paying for them individually has been perfectly satisfactory since
long before the invention of television.

Logical fallacy. Something has been imperfect so nothing new need be better.


In this case the new thing isn't any better. In fact it's worse. I'm
adopting a definition of "better" that means more freedom of choice,
which seems a reasonable one to me.

Rod.


Logical fallacy.You have set the criterion to suit your argument. There
are other criteria that need to be considered.

Bill


I've tried to apply the same criteria to books and television, and
make a comparison based on that. They are different media of course,
but what they have in common is the fact that they are both media that
are used to disseminate entertainment and information. We've had books
a lot longer, which makes them a useful yardstick when considering
what methods of management we ought to apply to other media, and what
freedoms it would be reasonable to expect them to have. It's clear
that television *still* doesn't have all the same basic freedoms that
books have enjoyed for centuries, even though we now have the
technology that would make it possible.

In particular, although books could be made available on a sort of
"all you can eat" subscription basis, and perhaps occasionally have,
the vast majority of books are disseminated on the basis of simple
purchase of individual books which the recipient can keep, and enjoy
as and when they like. Nobody seems to have had any problem with the
concept of paying for individual books, so I don't see why it couldn't
work for television too. I suggest the only reason this isn't the norm
is that television has had a different history and we have simply
become accustomed to the present system without questioning it.

Rod.
  #46  
Old February 26th 17, 11:27 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,003
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 13:49:22 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I wouldn't want to join a subscription service just to read books that I
could never possess. Not even a voluntary subscription service, and
certainly not a compulsory one that would criminalise me for not
joining. Somehow we seem to have sleepwalked into a situation where we
accept an utterly absurd way of paying for something just because it's
the way it's always been done and we've forgotten how to look at it
objectively and ask sensible questions about it.


Yet that "absurd" system delivers so much, and at a lower cost per quality
programme hour than the commercial alternatives. So in practice it works
well despite attempts to stick derogatory lables on it.


The trouble is that we are legally obliged by criminal law to pay for
the "low quality programme hours" as well, whether we want to watch
them or not.

The subscription for a typical online service is about half the cost
of what we have to pay for the BBC, much of what these services
provide is free, and on top of that we only pay for what we watch.

A subscription from practically everyone - a tax in all but name - to
pay for a national broadcasting service may have made sense when
nearly everyone could be presumed to make use of it because it was the
only service there was, but now it's one of many. You say it works
well, but it would be interesting to see how well it would work
without the luxury - afforded to nobody else - of legal protection
that effectively guarantees it an income regardless of what it does.

Rod.
  #47  
Old February 26th 17, 04:58 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Taylor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 09:24:55 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 02:10:54 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

You can't tell this with books either, but the usual practice of
paying for them individually has been perfectly satisfactory since
long before the invention of television.

Logical fallacy. Something has been imperfect so nothing new need be better.

In this case the new thing isn't any better. In fact it's worse. I'm
adopting a definition of "better" that means more freedom of choice,
which seems a reasonable one to me.

Rod.


Logical fallacy.You have set the criterion to suit your argument. There
are other criteria that need to be considered.

Bill


I've tried to apply the same criteria to books and television, and
make a comparison based on that. They are different media of course,
but what they have in common is the fact that they are both media that
are used to disseminate entertainment and information. We've had books
a lot longer, which makes them a useful yardstick when considering
what methods of management we ought to apply to other media, and what
freedoms it would be reasonable to expect them to have. It's clear
that television *still* doesn't have all the same basic freedoms that
books have enjoyed for centuries, even though we now have the
technology that would make it possible.

In particular, although books could be made available on a sort of
"all you can eat" subscription basis, and perhaps occasionally have,
the vast majority of books are disseminated on the basis of simple
purchase of individual books which the recipient can keep, and enjoy
as and when they like. Nobody seems to have had any problem with the
concept of paying for individual books, so I don't see why it couldn't
work for television too. I suggest the only reason this isn't the norm
is that television has had a different history and we have simply
become accustomed to the present system without questioning it.


You've not heard of these strange things called "lending libraries"
then. Oddly enough they are still quite widely used, although I expect
it won't be long before the influence of those who think everything
has its price will close them all.
  #48  
Old February 26th 17, 07:03 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
phil m
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

On 25/02/2017 11:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:27:17 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

I watch Amazon prime and it has a few good shows, but most of it is
dross, just like all the other channels; very expensively produced
dross.

Yes, some of it is rubbish, but if a programme has an individual
price, as some do, you can choose whether you think it's worth paying
for. You can't do that with the BBC; you have to pay for all of it in
order to watch any of it, or even if you only want to watch programmes
from other broadcasters and none from the BBC at all. And it costs you
about twice as much as Amazon or Netflix.


You usually can't tell whether a programme is worth watching until
you've started watching it, and they won't give you your money back if
you think it's rubbish. This is why I think subscription is a better way
to pay for programmes than per programme.


You can't tell this with books either, but the usual practice of
paying for them individually has been perfectly satisfactory since
long before the invention of television. You just read the blurbs, the
reviews, and comments by friends who have already read it, and if
you've ever read anything by the same author you consider that as
well, and then you just take a chance. You win some, you lose some,
and either way you get to keep the book afterwards.

I wouldn't want to join a subscription service just to read books that
I could never possess. Not even a voluntary subscription service, and
certainly not a compulsory one that would criminalise me for not
joining.


You already belong to one, it's called a Public Library and is paid for
out of the council tax, which is compulsory. You can still go and buy
the books if you want, but at least you can "try before you buy" by
borrowing from the library.

Somehow we seem to have sleepwalked into a situation where we
accept an utterly absurd way of paying for something just because it's
the way it's always been done and we've forgotten how to look at it
objectively and ask sensible questions about it.

Rod.


I very rarely watch any of the commercial channels, but they still cost
me much more than the licence fee. And I'm not sure the commercial
channels would survive just by people buying the odd programme when they
felt like it.

Phil M

  #49  
Old February 26th 17, 09:12 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 852
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

"Bill Taylor" wrote in message
...

You've not heard of these strange things called "lending libraries"
then. Oddly enough they are still quite widely used, although I expect
it won't be long before the influence of those who think everything
has its price will close them all.


Borrowing from public lending libraries has reduced from over 400 million issues in
1997/8 to 247 million in 2013/14, a decline of about 40%, and it has fallen
substantially since.

That's quite a dramatic reduction over just 20 years.

There comes a time when their purpose and value for money have to be questioned.

All things pass.



  #50  
Old February 27th 17, 08:31 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,141
Default New TV channel for BBC in Scotland

In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
Yet that "absurd" system delivers so much, and at a lower cost per
quality programme hour than the commercial alternatives. So in practice
it works well despite attempts to stick derogatory lables on it.


The trouble is that we are legally obliged by criminal law to pay for
the "low quality programme hours" as well, whether we want to watch them
or not.


Just as I'm "obliged by criminal law" to pay for things like streetlights
on streets I'll never visit, etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.