BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
Sep 9th 2005, 11:42 am
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Like I said unless you watched it on a UK purchased TV or a dual
> standard TV there would be no sound.
That is not a problem. Of course, Dutch cable companies alter the
signal to fit the Dutch standard before rebroadcasting it.
Regards
--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
news:[email protected]:
> Like I said unless you watched it on a UK purchased TV or a dual
> standard TV there would be no sound.
That is not a problem. Of course, Dutch cable companies alter the
signal to fit the Dutch standard before rebroadcasting it.
Regards
--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
Sep 9th 2005, 12:09 pm
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The rights paid by the cable companies for BBC are not program
> dependent. The cable company pays a flat annual fee to the BBC.
Of course, every other form would be too complicated. But the reason
for the fee is as stated.
>>If it's a BBC production, they will want to
>>sell it to Dutch TV out of their own interest and try not to "spoil"
>>the market beforehand.
>
> That doesn't make any sense. The BBC receive a fee from the cable
> companies and separately sell programs to Dutch TV stations.
No contradiction there. There's still an audience in Holland for BBC
programmes with a Dutch voiceover and/or subtitles who will watch the
version bought by Dutch TV. But the viewing figures are probably
smaller than they would be if part of the audience hadn't seen them on
original BBC earlier. And maybe some less popular BBC programmes are
never imported to Holland, but might have been otherwhise if Dutch TV
was the only source for them.
>>Either way, their interest is not to be
>>available for free.
>
> Since the charge for cable TV is so low and the number who actually
> watch BBC is also low, the cable companies cannot be paying
> substantial fees to the BBC.
I don't know. Maybe it's partly symbolic, so as to resolve the half-
illegal situation that existed before the fee was introduced. Anyway
you have to bear in mind that the situation in Holland and Belgium is
special mainly because those countries have the oldes cable networks in
Europe and as pioneers could "set the rules" themselves, and partly due
to the stubbornness of the Dutch :). It can't be duplicated elsewhere,
the BBC just won't play ball.
Regards
--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
news:[email protected]:
> The rights paid by the cable companies for BBC are not program
> dependent. The cable company pays a flat annual fee to the BBC.
Of course, every other form would be too complicated. But the reason
for the fee is as stated.
>>If it's a BBC production, they will want to
>>sell it to Dutch TV out of their own interest and try not to "spoil"
>>the market beforehand.
>
> That doesn't make any sense. The BBC receive a fee from the cable
> companies and separately sell programs to Dutch TV stations.
No contradiction there. There's still an audience in Holland for BBC
programmes with a Dutch voiceover and/or subtitles who will watch the
version bought by Dutch TV. But the viewing figures are probably
smaller than they would be if part of the audience hadn't seen them on
original BBC earlier. And maybe some less popular BBC programmes are
never imported to Holland, but might have been otherwhise if Dutch TV
was the only source for them.
>>Either way, their interest is not to be
>>available for free.
>
> Since the charge for cable TV is so low and the number who actually
> watch BBC is also low, the cable companies cannot be paying
> substantial fees to the BBC.
I don't know. Maybe it's partly symbolic, so as to resolve the half-
illegal situation that existed before the fee was introduced. Anyway
you have to bear in mind that the situation in Holland and Belgium is
special mainly because those countries have the oldes cable networks in
Europe and as pioneers could "set the rules" themselves, and partly due
to the stubbornness of the Dutch :). It can't be duplicated elsewhere,
the BBC just won't play ball.
Regards
--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
Sep 9th 2005, 8:24 pm
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:27:27 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:4ovvh1h2ggaijero3spaqbj0gousm23feq@ 4ax.com:
>> I have said several times it is not possible to receive broadcast BBC
>> TV here in Zuid Holland. Broadcast TV is line of site, 120 miles is a
>> bit much for that.
>See <[email protected]>
>> I don't recollect ever being anywhere in the
>> Netherlands that could receive BBC by direct broadcast.
>Actually they get their signal from a receiver station in Belgium (Or
>used to, in the analogue era.
Yes that has been covered several times already.
>Maybe they use a digital broadcast now,
>or maybe the BBC sends them a microwave link, who knows)
It's several days since I described how BBC TV arrives in NL. Before
microwave links were used there was no BBC TV in the Netherlands.
>> Even if BBC TV could be received there would be no sound unless a UK
>> or dual standard TV was used for reception. UK TV sound transmission
>> is not compatible with mainland Europe TVs. The sound is transmitted
>> on the opposite side of the video signal.
>No, it's just a different frequency, but on the same side.
The effect is the same. If you get a picture you get no sound if you
detune you can get sound but no picture.
I've lived in NL almost 40 years, I am very aware of the historical
lack of BBC TV until the microwave link was implemented.
Incidentally the cable companies extended the infrastructure set up by
local authorities after TV distribution was privatised.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:4ovvh1h2ggaijero3spaqbj0gousm23feq@ 4ax.com:
>> I have said several times it is not possible to receive broadcast BBC
>> TV here in Zuid Holland. Broadcast TV is line of site, 120 miles is a
>> bit much for that.
>See <[email protected]>
>> I don't recollect ever being anywhere in the
>> Netherlands that could receive BBC by direct broadcast.
>Actually they get their signal from a receiver station in Belgium (Or
>used to, in the analogue era.
Yes that has been covered several times already.
>Maybe they use a digital broadcast now,
>or maybe the BBC sends them a microwave link, who knows)
It's several days since I described how BBC TV arrives in NL. Before
microwave links were used there was no BBC TV in the Netherlands.
>> Even if BBC TV could be received there would be no sound unless a UK
>> or dual standard TV was used for reception. UK TV sound transmission
>> is not compatible with mainland Europe TVs. The sound is transmitted
>> on the opposite side of the video signal.
>No, it's just a different frequency, but on the same side.
The effect is the same. If you get a picture you get no sound if you
detune you can get sound but no picture.
I've lived in NL almost 40 years, I am very aware of the historical
lack of BBC TV until the microwave link was implemented.
Incidentally the cable companies extended the infrastructure set up by
local authorities after TV distribution was privatised.
--
Martin
Sep 9th 2005, 8:28 pm
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:37:32 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected] :
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:59:43 +0100, [email protected]
>> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
>> offy) wrote:
>>>No- it was definitely a broadcast signal. I remember it being a little
>>>fuzzy, but it was watchable.
>>
>> You can have fuzzy relayed signals. Our cable company used to
>> specialise in them.
>Quite. Brussels is 120 km inland. You need a super-aerial on a tall
>tower to get BBC there, if at all.
7000' high for direct reception.
> Cable companies may go to such
>efforts
I don't know of any 7000' antenna masts in Benelux.
> (even if the signal is marginal), but private households only
>if there's a TV DX enthousiast around, which is rare. :)
>Regards
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected] :
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:59:43 +0100, [email protected]
>> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
>> offy) wrote:
>>>No- it was definitely a broadcast signal. I remember it being a little
>>>fuzzy, but it was watchable.
>>
>> You can have fuzzy relayed signals. Our cable company used to
>> specialise in them.
>Quite. Brussels is 120 km inland. You need a super-aerial on a tall
>tower to get BBC there, if at all.
7000' high for direct reception.
> Cable companies may go to such
>efforts
I don't know of any 7000' antenna masts in Benelux.
> (even if the signal is marginal), but private households only
>if there's a TV DX enthousiast around, which is rare. :)
>Regards
--
Martin
Sep 9th 2005, 8:31 pm
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:41:09 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Tim Challenger <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:1126177406.377759d11857151731f81212e54d7bfa@ teranews:
>> If you say it was transmitted via microwave to NL then maybe
>> retransmitted? I was under the impression it was directly received
>> from the UK.
>See <[email protected]>
>It's not available terrestrially in most parts of NL.
In which parts of the Netherlands do you believe it is available
terrestrially?
>Originally they
>used terrestrial transmission picked up at the North Sea coast (in
>Belgium even), and distributed the signal from there through domestic
>microwave links. Nowadays they may use a microwave link from the BBC
>directly, as they now have an agreement with them.
Nowadays = for at least the last 20 years.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Tim Challenger <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:1126177406.377759d11857151731f81212e54d7bfa@ teranews:
>> If you say it was transmitted via microwave to NL then maybe
>> retransmitted? I was under the impression it was directly received
>> from the UK.
>See <[email protected]>
>It's not available terrestrially in most parts of NL.
In which parts of the Netherlands do you believe it is available
terrestrially?
>Originally they
>used terrestrial transmission picked up at the North Sea coast (in
>Belgium even), and distributed the signal from there through domestic
>microwave links. Nowadays they may use a microwave link from the BBC
>directly, as they now have an agreement with them.
Nowadays = for at least the last 20 years.
--
Martin
Sep 9th 2005, 8:32 pm
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:42:31 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected] :
>> Like I said unless you watched it on a UK purchased TV or a dual
>> standard TV there would be no sound.
>That is not a problem. Of course, Dutch cable companies alter the
>signal to fit the Dutch standard before rebroadcasting it.
Dutch TV companies distribute signals received via microwave link.
The context was direct reception of terrestrial signals.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected] :
>> Like I said unless you watched it on a UK purchased TV or a dual
>> standard TV there would be no sound.
>That is not a problem. Of course, Dutch cable companies alter the
>signal to fit the Dutch standard before rebroadcasting it.
Dutch TV companies distribute signals received via microwave link.
The context was direct reception of terrestrial signals.
--
Martin
Sep 9th 2005, 8:37 pm
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:09:49 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected] :
>> The rights paid by the cable companies for BBC are not program
>> dependent. The cable company pays a flat annual fee to the BBC.
>Of course, every other form would be too complicated. But the reason
>for the fee is as stated.
>>>If it's a BBC production, they will want to
>>>sell it to Dutch TV out of their own interest and try not to "spoil"
>>>the market beforehand.
>>
>> That doesn't make any sense. The BBC receive a fee from the cable
>> companies and separately sell programs to Dutch TV stations.
>No contradiction there. There's still an audience in Holland for BBC
>programmes with a Dutch voiceover and/or subtitles who will watch the
>version bought by Dutch TV. But the viewing figures are probably
>smaller than they would be if part of the audience hadn't seen them on
>original BBC earlier.
If less than 5% of the Dutch population ever watch foreign TV
channels, the decrease in the number of viewers is insignificant.
>And maybe some less popular BBC programmes are
>never imported to Holland, but might have been otherwhise if Dutch TV
>was the only source for them.
>>>Either way, their interest is not to be
>>>available for free.
>>
>> Since the charge for cable TV is so low and the number who actually
>> watch BBC is also low, the cable companies cannot be paying
>> substantial fees to the BBC.
>I don't know. Maybe it's partly symbolic, so as to resolve the half-
>illegal situation that existed before the fee was introduced. Anyway
>you have to bear in mind that the situation in Holland and Belgium is
>special mainly because those countries have the oldes cable networks in
>Europe and as pioneers could "set the rules" themselves, and partly due
>to the stubbornness of the Dutch :). It can't be duplicated elsewhere,
>the BBC just won't play ball.
I think Dutch commercial cable net works are not much older than those
in UK. It was Dutch local authorities that pioneered TV distribution
by cable in the Netherlands.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected] :
>> The rights paid by the cable companies for BBC are not program
>> dependent. The cable company pays a flat annual fee to the BBC.
>Of course, every other form would be too complicated. But the reason
>for the fee is as stated.
>>>If it's a BBC production, they will want to
>>>sell it to Dutch TV out of their own interest and try not to "spoil"
>>>the market beforehand.
>>
>> That doesn't make any sense. The BBC receive a fee from the cable
>> companies and separately sell programs to Dutch TV stations.
>No contradiction there. There's still an audience in Holland for BBC
>programmes with a Dutch voiceover and/or subtitles who will watch the
>version bought by Dutch TV. But the viewing figures are probably
>smaller than they would be if part of the audience hadn't seen them on
>original BBC earlier.
If less than 5% of the Dutch population ever watch foreign TV
channels, the decrease in the number of viewers is insignificant.
>And maybe some less popular BBC programmes are
>never imported to Holland, but might have been otherwhise if Dutch TV
>was the only source for them.
>>>Either way, their interest is not to be
>>>available for free.
>>
>> Since the charge for cable TV is so low and the number who actually
>> watch BBC is also low, the cable companies cannot be paying
>> substantial fees to the BBC.
>I don't know. Maybe it's partly symbolic, so as to resolve the half-
>illegal situation that existed before the fee was introduced. Anyway
>you have to bear in mind that the situation in Holland and Belgium is
>special mainly because those countries have the oldes cable networks in
>Europe and as pioneers could "set the rules" themselves, and partly due
>to the stubbornness of the Dutch :). It can't be duplicated elsewhere,
>the BBC just won't play ball.
I think Dutch commercial cable net works are not much older than those
in UK. It was Dutch local authorities that pioneered TV distribution
by cable in the Netherlands.
--
Martin
Sep 9th 2005, 10:02 pm
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (chancellor of the duchy of besses o'
> th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote in
> news:1h2kcwh.oig4k11v3s8rmN%this_address_is_for_sp [email protected]:
>
> > Tim Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > []
> >> I was in Antwerp for a few trips in the late '80s and they had a
> >> couple of UK channels I can't remember which, definitely one BBC - I
> >> was assured at the time it was via normal aerial, not cable.
> >
> > Friends in Brussels in the late 80s were receiving BBC 1 and 2 with no
> > problem. I forget if they could receive an ITV channel or not.
>
> In both cases, it was most likely cable. Belgium and Holland have close
> to 80 or 90 percent cable penetration, and Antwerp and Belgium are too
> far inland to receive BBC terrestrially. The assurance that it was
> "normal aerial" might not necessarily be correct. People not very
> technically minded are sometimes ignorant on how they get their signals.
OK- I accept what you say, I don't know much about the technology. They
just seemed like the kind of people who would have told me they had
cable! They were certainly keen to show me their CD player- the first
time I'd seen one at the time! In the case of Brussels, it was 1986, not
that I suspect it makes a difference.
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer
> [email protected] (chancellor of the duchy of besses o'
> th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote in
> news:1h2kcwh.oig4k11v3s8rmN%this_address_is_for_sp [email protected]:
>
> > Tim Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > []
> >> I was in Antwerp for a few trips in the late '80s and they had a
> >> couple of UK channels I can't remember which, definitely one BBC - I
> >> was assured at the time it was via normal aerial, not cable.
> >
> > Friends in Brussels in the late 80s were receiving BBC 1 and 2 with no
> > problem. I forget if they could receive an ITV channel or not.
>
> In both cases, it was most likely cable. Belgium and Holland have close
> to 80 or 90 percent cable penetration, and Antwerp and Belgium are too
> far inland to receive BBC terrestrially. The assurance that it was
> "normal aerial" might not necessarily be correct. People not very
> technically minded are sometimes ignorant on how they get their signals.
OK- I accept what you say, I don't know much about the technology. They
just seemed like the kind of people who would have told me they had
cable! They were certainly keen to show me their CD player- the first
time I'd seen one at the time! In the case of Brussels, it was 1986, not
that I suspect it makes a difference.
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer
Sep 9th 2005, 10:10 pm
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
> I just admire what they do there and envy Dutch cable customers.
> Otherwhise I agree with what Alan in Brussels said. Every nation pays
> fees for their domestic channels already, like we all pay taxes for our
> domestic road networks and let foreigners use them for free, in
> exchange for the fact that we can use their roads abroad when we are
> there. Why can't the same logic apply to public television?
I think it's a bad analogy. You're free to drive on UK roads when you're
in the UK, but you're hardly driving on them while in Germany. Why would
you expect to be watching UK TV while in Germany for free? When in the
UK, you have the same right to watch UK TV as anyone else living here-
which means you have to watch it on a licensed TV.
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer
[]
> I just admire what they do there and envy Dutch cable customers.
> Otherwhise I agree with what Alan in Brussels said. Every nation pays
> fees for their domestic channels already, like we all pay taxes for our
> domestic road networks and let foreigners use them for free, in
> exchange for the fact that we can use their roads abroad when we are
> there. Why can't the same logic apply to public television?
I think it's a bad analogy. You're free to drive on UK roads when you're
in the UK, but you're hardly driving on them while in Germany. Why would
you expect to be watching UK TV while in Germany for free? When in the
UK, you have the same right to watch UK TV as anyone else living here-
which means you have to watch it on a licensed TV.
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer
Sep 9th 2005, 10:17 pm
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:02:12 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:
>Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (chancellor of the duchy of besses o'
>> th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote in
>> news:1h2kcwh.oig4k11v3s8rmN%this_address_is_for_sp [email protected]:
>>
>> > Tim Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > []
>> >> I was in Antwerp for a few trips in the late '80s and they had a
>> >> couple of UK channels I can't remember which, definitely one BBC - I
>> >> was assured at the time it was via normal aerial, not cable.
>> >
>> > Friends in Brussels in the late 80s were receiving BBC 1 and 2 with no
>> > problem. I forget if they could receive an ITV channel or not.
>>
>> In both cases, it was most likely cable. Belgium and Holland have close
>> to 80 or 90 percent cable penetration, and Antwerp and Belgium are too
>> far inland to receive BBC terrestrially. The assurance that it was
>> "normal aerial" might not necessarily be correct. People not very
>> technically minded are sometimes ignorant on how they get their signals.
>OK- I accept what you say, I don't know much about the technology. They
>just seemed like the kind of people who would have told me they had
>cable! They were certainly keen to show me their CD player- the first
>time I'd seen one at the time! In the case of Brussels, it was 1986, not
>that I suspect it makes a difference.
By 1986 we had *technically* good quality BBC 1 & 2 via microwave and
the cable in Zuid Holland. I don't recall BBC being provided in hotels
I stayed in Antwerp and Brussels in 1985.
--
Martin
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:
>Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (chancellor of the duchy of besses o'
>> th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote in
>> news:1h2kcwh.oig4k11v3s8rmN%this_address_is_for_sp [email protected]:
>>
>> > Tim Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > []
>> >> I was in Antwerp for a few trips in the late '80s and they had a
>> >> couple of UK channels I can't remember which, definitely one BBC - I
>> >> was assured at the time it was via normal aerial, not cable.
>> >
>> > Friends in Brussels in the late 80s were receiving BBC 1 and 2 with no
>> > problem. I forget if they could receive an ITV channel or not.
>>
>> In both cases, it was most likely cable. Belgium and Holland have close
>> to 80 or 90 percent cable penetration, and Antwerp and Belgium are too
>> far inland to receive BBC terrestrially. The assurance that it was
>> "normal aerial" might not necessarily be correct. People not very
>> technically minded are sometimes ignorant on how they get their signals.
>OK- I accept what you say, I don't know much about the technology. They
>just seemed like the kind of people who would have told me they had
>cable! They were certainly keen to show me their CD player- the first
>time I'd seen one at the time! In the case of Brussels, it was 1986, not
>that I suspect it makes a difference.
By 1986 we had *technically* good quality BBC 1 & 2 via microwave and
the cable in Zuid Holland. I don't recall BBC being provided in hotels
I stayed in Antwerp and Brussels in 1985.
--
Martin
Sep 9th 2005, 10:21 pm
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:10:18 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:
>Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>[]
>> I just admire what they do there and envy Dutch cable customers.
>> Otherwhise I agree with what Alan in Brussels said. Every nation pays
>> fees for their domestic channels already, like we all pay taxes for our
>> domestic road networks and let foreigners use them for free, in
>> exchange for the fact that we can use their roads abroad when we are
>> there. Why can't the same logic apply to public television?
>I think it's a bad analogy. You're free to drive on UK roads when you're
>in the UK, but you're hardly driving on them while in Germany. Why would
>you expect to be watching UK TV while in Germany for free? When in the
>UK, you have the same right to watch UK TV as anyone else living here-
>which means you have to watch it on a licensed TV.
a better analogy is radio.
Having 30 cable channels doesn't provide 30 times more TV. Much is the
same stuff dubbed or subtitled in the local languages. It's
interesting that all available F1 commentaries are equally irritating
and how similar "Millionaires" presenters are.
--
Martin
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:
>Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>[]
>> I just admire what they do there and envy Dutch cable customers.
>> Otherwhise I agree with what Alan in Brussels said. Every nation pays
>> fees for their domestic channels already, like we all pay taxes for our
>> domestic road networks and let foreigners use them for free, in
>> exchange for the fact that we can use their roads abroad when we are
>> there. Why can't the same logic apply to public television?
>I think it's a bad analogy. You're free to drive on UK roads when you're
>in the UK, but you're hardly driving on them while in Germany. Why would
>you expect to be watching UK TV while in Germany for free? When in the
>UK, you have the same right to watch UK TV as anyone else living here-
>which means you have to watch it on a licensed TV.
a better analogy is radio.
Having 30 cable channels doesn't provide 30 times more TV. Much is the
same stuff dubbed or subtitled in the local languages. It's
interesting that all available F1 commentaries are equally irritating
and how similar "Millionaires" presenters are.
--
Martin
Sep 9th 2005, 10:30 pm
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:10:18 +0100, [email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
> offy) wrote:
>
> >Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >[]
> >> I just admire what they do there and envy Dutch cable customers.
> >> Otherwhise I agree with what Alan in Brussels said. Every nation pays
> >> fees for their domestic channels already, like we all pay taxes for our
> >> domestic road networks and let foreigners use them for free, in
> >> exchange for the fact that we can use their roads abroad when we are
> >> there. Why can't the same logic apply to public television?
> >
> >I think it's a bad analogy. You're free to drive on UK roads when you're
> >in the UK, but you're hardly driving on them while in Germany. Why would
> >you expect to be watching UK TV while in Germany for free? When in the
> >UK, you have the same right to watch UK TV as anyone else living here-
> >which means you have to watch it on a licensed TV.
>
> a better analogy is radio.
> Having 30 cable channels doesn't provide 30 times more TV.
I discovered that in the US!
In the UK, you can get significantly more channels via digital broadcast
than the 5 you'd get with no digital receiver. However, if you look at
the actual programming on the digital channels, much of it is simply
repeats of programming on the broadcast channels. In the case of a
channel like BBC3, it's true that they have a lot of original
programming, especially comedy, but much of that will eventually find
its way to BBC2 and even BBC1- indeed, when a BBC3 programme becomes
extremely popular (e.g. Little Britain) it will eventually _become_ a
BBC1 programme. Much of the rebroadcasting is gimmickly- for example,
you might be able to watch 'next week's' episode of, say, Doctor Who,
immediately after the BBC1 broadcast, but on BBC3.
That said, there is more variety, and as you're not paying for the
digital broadcast after the initial payment for a receiver (which is
pretty cheap)- it's basically good value. The system also allows for
flexibility. For example, during Wimbledon, you can watch individual
matches on specifically created channels- same with other major events-
world cup, olympics, and so on. Also, a large number of classical music
concerts are now broadcast on BBC4. While it's true that this is partly
because BBC2 started showing _less_ classical music programmes, BBC4 is
showing far more than BBC2 ever could have.
> Much is the
> same stuff dubbed or subtitled in the local languages. It's
> interesting that all available F1 commentaries are equally irritating
> and how similar "Millionaires" presenters are.
The Millionaire thing may not be incidental. The sets and design are
essentially the same- who knows, those shiny ties the presenters wear
may be part of the franchise deal!? :)
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:10:18 +0100, [email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
> offy) wrote:
>
> >Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >[]
> >> I just admire what they do there and envy Dutch cable customers.
> >> Otherwhise I agree with what Alan in Brussels said. Every nation pays
> >> fees for their domestic channels already, like we all pay taxes for our
> >> domestic road networks and let foreigners use them for free, in
> >> exchange for the fact that we can use their roads abroad when we are
> >> there. Why can't the same logic apply to public television?
> >
> >I think it's a bad analogy. You're free to drive on UK roads when you're
> >in the UK, but you're hardly driving on them while in Germany. Why would
> >you expect to be watching UK TV while in Germany for free? When in the
> >UK, you have the same right to watch UK TV as anyone else living here-
> >which means you have to watch it on a licensed TV.
>
> a better analogy is radio.
> Having 30 cable channels doesn't provide 30 times more TV.
I discovered that in the US!
In the UK, you can get significantly more channels via digital broadcast
than the 5 you'd get with no digital receiver. However, if you look at
the actual programming on the digital channels, much of it is simply
repeats of programming on the broadcast channels. In the case of a
channel like BBC3, it's true that they have a lot of original
programming, especially comedy, but much of that will eventually find
its way to BBC2 and even BBC1- indeed, when a BBC3 programme becomes
extremely popular (e.g. Little Britain) it will eventually _become_ a
BBC1 programme. Much of the rebroadcasting is gimmickly- for example,
you might be able to watch 'next week's' episode of, say, Doctor Who,
immediately after the BBC1 broadcast, but on BBC3.
That said, there is more variety, and as you're not paying for the
digital broadcast after the initial payment for a receiver (which is
pretty cheap)- it's basically good value. The system also allows for
flexibility. For example, during Wimbledon, you can watch individual
matches on specifically created channels- same with other major events-
world cup, olympics, and so on. Also, a large number of classical music
concerts are now broadcast on BBC4. While it's true that this is partly
because BBC2 started showing _less_ classical music programmes, BBC4 is
showing far more than BBC2 ever could have.
> Much is the
> same stuff dubbed or subtitled in the local languages. It's
> interesting that all available F1 commentaries are equally irritating
> and how similar "Millionaires" presenters are.
The Millionaire thing may not be incidental. The sets and design are
essentially the same- who knows, those shiny ties the presenters wear
may be part of the franchise deal!? :)
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer
Sep 9th 2005, 10:33 pm
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
Martin <[email protected]> wrote
in news:[email protected]:
> It's several days since I described how BBC TV arrives in NL. Before
> microwave links were used there was no BBC TV in the Netherlands.
Hmm
> I've lived in NL almost 40 years, I am very aware of the historical
> lack of BBC TV until the microwave link was implemented.
With all due respect, but I think this is not true. Unfortunately I
can't find a source on the net, but I'm pretty sure they used to pick
it up terrestrially at the beginning.
I remember watching a programme about "cable pirates" in Holland in the
early 1980s (pirate TV stations who would "hijack" a cable channel
after the close down of the main channel), where they showed what cable
channels were available in Amsterdam at the time (BBC was among them),
how they were picked up using terrestrial reception, and how pirates
managed to hook on to these antennas.
Regards
--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
in news:[email protected]:
> It's several days since I described how BBC TV arrives in NL. Before
> microwave links were used there was no BBC TV in the Netherlands.
Hmm
> I've lived in NL almost 40 years, I am very aware of the historical
> lack of BBC TV until the microwave link was implemented.
With all due respect, but I think this is not true. Unfortunately I
can't find a source on the net, but I'm pretty sure they used to pick
it up terrestrially at the beginning.
I remember watching a programme about "cable pirates" in Holland in the
early 1980s (pirate TV stations who would "hijack" a cable channel
after the close down of the main channel), where they showed what cable
channels were available in Amsterdam at the time (BBC was among them),
how they were picked up using terrestrial reception, and how pirates
managed to hook on to these antennas.
Regards
--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
Sep 9th 2005, 10:35 pm
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>>It's not available terrestrially in most parts of NL.
>
> In which parts of the Netherlands do you believe it is available
> terrestrially?
On the west coast, with a dedicated & well positioned antenna.
>>Nowadays they may use a microwave link from the BBC
>>directly, as they now have an agreement with them.
>
> Nowadays = for at least the last 20 years.
1985? OK. But I'm rather sure they had BBC before that.
Regards
--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
news:[email protected]:
>>It's not available terrestrially in most parts of NL.
>
> In which parts of the Netherlands do you believe it is available
> terrestrially?
On the west coast, with a dedicated & well positioned antenna.
>>Nowadays they may use a microwave link from the BBC
>>directly, as they now have an agreement with them.
>
> Nowadays = for at least the last 20 years.
1985? OK. But I'm rather sure they had BBC before that.
Regards
--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
Sep 9th 2005, 10:42 pm
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: BBC and ITV to start Sky TV rival
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:30:44 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:10:18 +0100, [email protected]
>> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
>> offy) wrote:
>>
>> >Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >[]
>> >> I just admire what they do there and envy Dutch cable customers.
>> >> Otherwhise I agree with what Alan in Brussels said. Every nation pays
>> >> fees for their domestic channels already, like we all pay taxes for our
>> >> domestic road networks and let foreigners use them for free, in
>> >> exchange for the fact that we can use their roads abroad when we are
>> >> there. Why can't the same logic apply to public television?
>> >
>> >I think it's a bad analogy. You're free to drive on UK roads when you're
>> >in the UK, but you're hardly driving on them while in Germany. Why would
>> >you expect to be watching UK TV while in Germany for free? When in the
>> >UK, you have the same right to watch UK TV as anyone else living here-
>> >which means you have to watch it on a licensed TV.
>>
>> a better analogy is radio.
>> Having 30 cable channels doesn't provide 30 times more TV.
>I discovered that in the US!
>In the UK, you can get significantly more channels via digital broadcast
>than the 5 you'd get with no digital receiver. However, if you look at
>the actual programming on the digital channels, much of it is simply
>repeats of programming on the broadcast channels. In the case of a
>channel like BBC3, it's true that they have a lot of original
>programming, especially comedy, but much of that will eventually find
>its way to BBC2 and even BBC1- indeed, when a BBC3 programme becomes
>extremely popular (e.g. Little Britain) it will eventually _become_ a
>BBC1 programme. Much of the rebroadcasting is gimmickly- for example,
>you might be able to watch 'next week's' episode of, say, Doctor Who,
>immediately after the BBC1 broadcast, but on BBC3.
>That said, there is more variety, and as you're not paying for the
>digital broadcast after the initial payment for a receiver (which is
>pretty cheap)- it's basically good value. The system also allows for
>flexibility. For example, during Wimbledon, you can watch individual
>matches on specifically created channels- same with other major events-
>world cup, olympics, and so on. Also, a large number of classical music
>concerts are now broadcast on BBC4. While it's true that this is partly
>because BBC2 started showing _less_ classical music programmes, BBC4 is
>showing far more than BBC2 ever could have.
>> Much is the
>> same stuff dubbed or subtitled in the local languages. It's
>> interesting that all available F1 commentaries are equally irritating
>> and how similar "Millionaires" presenters are.
>The Millionaire thing may not be incidental.
You are right. Nor are similarities between various Big Brothers.
>The sets and design are
>essentially the same- who knows, those shiny ties the presenters wear
>may be part of the franchise deal!? :)
It is a sort of franchise thing
I think De Moll run a training school.
--
Martin
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:10:18 +0100, [email protected]
>> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
>> offy) wrote:
>>
>> >Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >[]
>> >> I just admire what they do there and envy Dutch cable customers.
>> >> Otherwhise I agree with what Alan in Brussels said. Every nation pays
>> >> fees for their domestic channels already, like we all pay taxes for our
>> >> domestic road networks and let foreigners use them for free, in
>> >> exchange for the fact that we can use their roads abroad when we are
>> >> there. Why can't the same logic apply to public television?
>> >
>> >I think it's a bad analogy. You're free to drive on UK roads when you're
>> >in the UK, but you're hardly driving on them while in Germany. Why would
>> >you expect to be watching UK TV while in Germany for free? When in the
>> >UK, you have the same right to watch UK TV as anyone else living here-
>> >which means you have to watch it on a licensed TV.
>>
>> a better analogy is radio.
>> Having 30 cable channels doesn't provide 30 times more TV.
>I discovered that in the US!
>In the UK, you can get significantly more channels via digital broadcast
>than the 5 you'd get with no digital receiver. However, if you look at
>the actual programming on the digital channels, much of it is simply
>repeats of programming on the broadcast channels. In the case of a
>channel like BBC3, it's true that they have a lot of original
>programming, especially comedy, but much of that will eventually find
>its way to BBC2 and even BBC1- indeed, when a BBC3 programme becomes
>extremely popular (e.g. Little Britain) it will eventually _become_ a
>BBC1 programme. Much of the rebroadcasting is gimmickly- for example,
>you might be able to watch 'next week's' episode of, say, Doctor Who,
>immediately after the BBC1 broadcast, but on BBC3.
>That said, there is more variety, and as you're not paying for the
>digital broadcast after the initial payment for a receiver (which is
>pretty cheap)- it's basically good value. The system also allows for
>flexibility. For example, during Wimbledon, you can watch individual
>matches on specifically created channels- same with other major events-
>world cup, olympics, and so on. Also, a large number of classical music
>concerts are now broadcast on BBC4. While it's true that this is partly
>because BBC2 started showing _less_ classical music programmes, BBC4 is
>showing far more than BBC2 ever could have.
>> Much is the
>> same stuff dubbed or subtitled in the local languages. It's
>> interesting that all available F1 commentaries are equally irritating
>> and how similar "Millionaires" presenters are.
>The Millionaire thing may not be incidental.
You are right. Nor are similarities between various Big Brothers.
>The sets and design are
>essentially the same- who knows, those shiny ties the presenters wear
>may be part of the franchise deal!? :)
It is a sort of franchise thing
I think De Moll run a training school.
--
Martin
