All posts by Barry B
Below are all of Barry B's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
It is strange behaviour of Sky subscribers from the analysis above to pay for something they already can get for free. I too know people who have a Sky Sports subscription who for the most part watch the BBC/ITV FTA channels. I suspect you have to be a real sports fanatic to pay the extortionate fees that Sky demand to watch their programmes which are by no means advert free.
As for the fees Sky charge for appearing on their EPG, I understood when the BBC ditched Sky some years back from using their encryption system and moved to Astra 2D, there were going to be only one-off fees to change the Sky software accordingly, not unreasonable, so I don't understand how this has become an annual charge of nearly between 11 and 12 million pounds as indicated in the article when I understood previously they were paying around 17 million for handling the whole transmission which included paying Astra too.
Maybe the Murdocks have more influence at the BBC than we know and have hacked a few phones of television centre top-brass and know where the bodies are buried.
| link to this comment |
Its a shame there are not more free HD channels on Freesat, instead of the same four that are on Freeview. This would give Sky something to think about.
With all the money pumped into BBC for conversion to hi-def digital over the years, seemingly wasted on putting up new buildings and relocation costs, they should be ashamed that their four main BBC channels 1 to 4 are not broadcast in HD across all platforms.
This should have been done by Act of Parliament and not left to the whims of highly paid executives who seemingly couldn't find their own highly padded backsides with both hands in a darkened room.
Total failure and incompetence from an organisation that has lost the plot.
| link to this comment |
I always thought having every BBC region available 24 hours a day on satellite was a complete overkill and was decided on when NuLabour was at the helm and I guess the BBC management thought they would continue to get inflation+ increases in licence fee year on year to support their lavish spending.
Well finally they have been made to wake up and smell the coffee! Unfortunately none of the Big Cheeses have been decapitated and it will be the lower orders in the engine room who will be sacrificed. I think the cuts are not deep enough and remember they are still working with a budget of THREE and a HALF BILLION POUNDs a year and that's around TEN MILLION QUID a day to provide a few lack lustre broadcasts. Strewth !
There are plenty of solutions to the problem of supplying local regional news by satellite at 6:30 pm which would involve a more complicated delivery procedure and make more efficient use of the satellite bandwidth purchased. I am sure the BBC are aware of this but seem reluctant to do it. They were also reluctant to scramble all their broadcasts on Freeview and Freesat and sell them al-la-carte on the basis that the viewer could decide which channels he wanted to pay for.
Instead we pay for everything regardless of if we want it or not. With a more flexible and subscription based service they could provide more channels for sport and film for example and compete with Sky. It seems they are not allowed this option and allow Sky a free run at it.
Maybe the tide is turning for Sky and with the recent EU ruling regarding the use of other decoders to show football in pubs, they may not have the game to themselves.
We need people in Government with vision and leadership skills, but sadly these are all lacking and I expect things will linger on and be bodged in the manner the BBC are taking the axe and hammer to their services.
It is my view that like the NHS, the BBC has become too big for itself, a dinosaur and will eventually sink under the weight of its own arrogance and conceit for those who pay to fund it.
| link to this comment |
@ kentman
you say you are happy to pay the cost of a pint of beer a week to subsidise the BBC, maybe you meant the price of one as the cost to make a pint of beer is only pennies as it's mostly water.
I would argue that beer is a good anaolgy for the BBC though, as with most mass manufactured English beer, its programmes are weak and full of froth and although you might think watching them does you good, in the morning you wake up with a bad head and no memory of where you were last night. The only thing you have to show for it is an empty wallet and a poorly belly!
| link to this comment |
@ kentman ...wonder all you like (lol)
Surely by 1988 the research station you mention was in fact run by British Telecom and not the Post Office, was by then partly privatised and was being pruned down into a lean telecoms company and not some vestige of a 1950's civil-service attitude to business.
I think the retarded attitude to technology of UK government and the profit motives of large corporations deserves a thread all to itself and so don't get me started on that.
It really does not matter how much the TV Tax is (and it has been declared a tax since around 2006), or how it compares in price with everyday commodities, the point is freedom of choice! If you were made by law to pay three quid a week to have delivered The Guardian or Daily Telegraph for example, even though you did not read these organs of truth and unbiased comment, would you be happy to do so? I could subscribe to Sky if I want to or buy any newspaper I like but I choose not to do so. The same isn't true with the BBC and I have to pay for their biased propaganda and politically correct programming whether I want it or not!
The correct approach for funding of the BBC is a combination of advertising and subscription in the same way Sky operates. This is no longer the 1930's when there was only one channel and the only choice was to have a TV or not.
| link to this comment |
Brian that's quite interesting I didn't know viewers in other EEA countries can legally watch re-broadcast programmes from others without having to pay any licence fees or royalties to the originating broadcster. I am somewhat confused though as the BBC limits where its i-PLAYER can be consumed via the internet and claims this is due to terrortorial copyrights.
When visiting the Alicante area I was made aware of a private concern that was picking up UK TV broadcasts, PSB and Sky, and re-transmitting them via their own aerial based system to UK expatriates for a fee. Very large dishes are needed here as it is at the fringes of Astra 2D reception making individual reception difficult.
As I understood it they were not doing so with the broadcasters permission and were certainly not paying them for the service. A previous company had been busted by the Spanish authorities but re-emerged under a new quise, it was rumoured, when the appropriate officials palms were crossed with silver. (Isn't corruption wonderful??)
@ kentman
actually I rather like commercial breaks in tv programmes, it is a useful time to get up and make a coffee, use the loo or make a quick phone call. I always mute the sound when they come on and hardly ever watch an ad but am happy they are paying for the programme. With the BBC they expect you to sit there for the whole time and quite often what they show is just not worth the investment of my time and certainly not my money. It certainly is not healthy to be sat down in one place for too long, concentrating on one thing and I would encourage others to do the same.
The thrust of my argument for funding of the BBC is that a "licence" is a very outdated concept when there are so many televsion channels available who do not benefit from it and it obliterates the need for the BBC to care what it's audience thinks (rather like government) when it's funding comes regardless whether they produce what the consumer actually wants. A selective subscription system in the same way Sky operates would soon fix this!
| link to this comment |
Brian, that's and interesting change and one which can't exactly please Sky et-al.
As far as I understand from the system being used in the Alicante area, "subscribers" are paying for the rental of the equipment which decrypts their signal and not for the programmes themselves Perhaps this is how this operator is getting away with it as I'm sure Sky are well aware of it. From locals I also got the impression the Spanish authorities don't care about the copyright violation as long as the correct taxes are paid and greasy palms suitably rewarded. The previous incarnation was busted because they hadn't looked after these important details.
| link to this comment |
A previous next door neighbour had a Sky installation upgraded and the fitter replaced the existing dish with one where it over-hanged my property such that half of the dish was within my boundary. The previous dish was contained within that property's own boundary. Although it doesn't look good, it also impedes me as it is in an area where I place a ladder for maintenance and decoration purposes.
I phoned Sky and asked them to move it but they said the neighbour would have to call, so I asked them to phone. I don't know if they ever did or not but of course no fitter came to move the dish. Since then the neighbour did a bunk and debt collectors have been after her for unpaid bills.
The house was sold on and the wires to the dish have been cut and it is obviously not in use and there is no agreement with the current owner and Sky. They are using cable.
I wonder if I would be within my rights to remove and or adjust the dish myself seeing as Sky don't seem to give a hoot or could I be guilty of criminal damage? I presume Sky still own the dish even though the present owner never gave them permission to place it there.
| link to this comment |
Mr Kentman
you keep going on about living in different worlds, I can only conclude you work for the BBC and that would explain everything.
The world is changing and especially in broadcast technology there is much choice, not all good I have to agree, however a funding model which started in the 1930's and did indeed serve the UK well up until the end of the 1980's is no longer suitable in the 21st century with hundreds of channels available.
Would you agree the quality of BBC TV output is nowhere as creative, original and innovative as it was in the 1960's to 80's?
Providing them with more channels and generous guaranteed funding of ten million pounds per day has ruined their focus and drive. It was in the era of John Burt that they decided they were no longer a public service broadcaster as such but a 'Brand' and changed their logo and corporate structure such that we now have very highly paid executives with non-job titles such as "Head of Vision".
Just as in other public services such as the Royal Mail we now have people running them who have no idea of how the organisation works from the ground up as they have little or no expereince of working on the shop floor.
They are like a great ocean liner that has lost its rudder and the captain and crew have no idea where they are. It's full steam ahead for now but sooner or later the crash will come.
| link to this comment |
Page 1
Wednesday 30 March 2011 10:42AM
Come back Anne Barr, you really made my day reading your irrelevant and odd ball rantings.
I came on this site looking for info on this awful rip off channel Bid Tv, it seems to be addictive to people who have nothing better to do than shop from their armchairs and waste their money on total tat. Plus the £1.53 phone call and rip off postage charges, it seems to be made for mugs!
I have a relative who seems to be so addicited and short of having her "sectioned" under the mental health act for her own good, I was looking for a way of removing these rip off shopping channels from her freeview reception. Has anyone any ideas how they can be deleted from an EPG for ever short of blowin up the transmitter which is probably illegal anyway ;)? As you can see i'm quite angry about this channel.
As far as I'm concerned they are pure evil, simple as that and a sad reflection on our lazy consumerist society.