All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Anthony: I think you've created a problem, where none actually exists. There will be no hounding of anyone, any more than there has been over the past 45 years. As I pointed out, the reason a seperate radio licence was stopped was because the majority of people had TV's, and it wasn't cost effective to track people down for this extra licence.
Be it DAB, FM, LW, a crystal set or even the fillings in someones teeth, the TV Licence covers the lot, and since 96% of the population has a TV, that leaves just 4% to police. And when the loophole about watching/listening online is closed, I suspect that the number of people watching online without paying up will also fall.
The number of people who just use a radio and nothing else is relatively small, and I suspect is getting smaller by the day. Much as I'd like people listening to BBC radio to stump up (and if your the sort of person with just a radio, I suspect your more likely to listen to Radio 2 than some urban/street music station), but its not exactly practical.You could go around and find out if people are listening to their radio, but its not difficult to hide a radio, and its hardly worth it. And I'm sure that the radio manufacturers and government would love to introduce a CAM system for kitchen radios, when they haven't got one for TV's and PVR's yet.
The radio licence finished up at the equivalent of about 20 in 1971, and the figures I've seen from the BBC reckon that the cost of radio per month per licence fee is about 2.61 - so call it 32 for the year. Is that possible to collect? Unlikely. In other words, enforcing a radio licence would be economically inefficent, and practically impossible.
Jon Freeman: By the sound of it, I dont think you were exactly being 'hounded'. Once you'd opened a letter and rung them, they should have just sent you a form to fill in (they shouldn't have told you to ignore offical letters - thats a very bad idea). The reason they assume peple have a TV when they say they have not is simply because the majority of people are lying. Its like HMRC taking at face value people saying they have no earnings and therefore dont need to pay tax - it might be true for some, but mostly its not.
Although you might spend much of your time watching ITV3, statistically, 93% of licence fee payers use BBC1 at least once a week, and its likely there will be other programming both on TV and radio that you probably do use. I agree that the BBC does do quality programming, and the cost is very reasonable when you look at what we get. Its a shame that people do 'dodge the column', because it makes life harder for everyone else.
| link to this comment |
R Watts: To be fair, the quality seems to have improved recently, both in terms of broadcast quality, and the sort of films they are actually showing. On the other hand, its still not one I watch that often.
| link to this comment |
Paul Murphy: If your Tv has an HDMI port, use that! You cannot (in practical terms) have a HDMI to scart convertor. If you are short of HDMI ports, then you can get a 3-1 adapter, for less than 10.
What is the make model of the recorder and tv?
| link to this comment |
Nick Anderson: The problem for the BBC is probably that not enough of us are using the Red Button services, useful as they are to many. At 15m a year, it would be interesting to see how much that costs per person per year per use. I have used it for things like The Proms and Springwatch, but as the number of tablets, mobiles, etc have grown, and the people using the service has not, there is a point when its no longer worth doing.
Of course the BBC is in this position in the first place because of the need to pay for over 75's licence fees, etc. If they keep the service, savings have to found elsewhere, and if they drop it, people will complain. They can't win.
| link to this comment |
MilesT: The model for PBS (and NPR) seems a bit Rube Goldberg to us (and possibly to a lot of people in the States as well), but I suppose it makes some sort of sense when you look at its history. Considering its relatively limited budget, the fact that its income comes from so many sources and is so changable, and is always being attacked by someone, it does very well. I was interested to find out that NPR is that most trusted news source in the US, and PBS's online traffic was more than CBS, NBC or ABC.
Its not just Julia Childs and Sesame Street which have been supported by PBS. Ken Burns has a stellar record, and his Civil War series was a landmark. And we in the UK should be grateful. It was PBS which made Python popular in the States (although the tape conversion costs came from the cash generated by footage used on an NBC show), and 1970's-80's Dr Who. And even 'Are You Being Served?'
PBS shows a huge amount of British shows (mostly BBC), and uses the format for Antiques Roadshow, for example (there is an episode of Frasier where they appear on the show). And the cash which the big PBS stations, like WGBH and WNET, have stumped up for coproductions with the BBC has really helped with drama, documentaries and natural history. In fact, someone has argued that there should be a term for these coproductions - 'Trollywood' http://blog.commarts.wisc…ood/
Its one of the real oddities of watching/listening to PBS/NPR that you do have these 'sponsors' messages (this program is supported by The Such and Such Foundation and GM, for new solutions for transport..' ) and the NPR station I listen to encourges people to donate their old car. PBS shows do have little extras at the start of many shows reminding people that they are watching a programme because people support the station with donations. Brianist has already suggested something similar for the BBC, reminding people that their licence fee makes programmes possible.
Before people think that the PBS model might work in the UK, its worth remembering that although the US taxpayer per head pays very little, many people, via donations, etc, might pay much more. And the BBC can make stuff like drama that even a rich PBS station might have problems with.
There was an article back in 2011 which is worth reading by all the people who live in areas served by 'light transmitters', who complain about the licence fee - The NPR-Elitist-Funding Battle: Mostly, Not About NPR or Elites | TIME.com . The Bottom line is...just that. Like those coastal elites, I live in an urban area with fast broadband - so I have lots of choice, apart from the BBC. But if your in a 'light area', unless your willing to stump up for Sky, you've pretty much had it in a post privatised BBC world. Who else is going to want to broadcast to you?
I remember one night when I was staying in a hotel in Florida. It was just like the Springsteen song , '57 channels and nothing on'. I happened to find the PBS channel, and spent a decent evening watch stuff like Campion. PBS is one of those things which makes life a bit more civilised, and I hope it comes to Freeview at some point.
| link to this comment |
Brian: If you look at the top of the page, you'll see that if you are using this transmitter, then the PSB3 mux is HD. If your not getting the mux, thats another matter, but you should be able to get the bulk of HD channels. Is your TV actually an HD TV? By that, I dont mean 'Full HD' - thats just the panel (old trick of certain retailers), but does it have an HD (DVB-T2) tuner? If not, then either you'll need a TV that does have one, or add a box that does (starts around 44 quid). If you give us the model/make of your TV, we can tell you.
| link to this comment |
c button: Try disconnecting your booster - the 98-100% signal strength is far too high. Looking at DigitalUk, if the postcode is correct, your 1km from the transmitter! Frankly, you might not need an aerial at all at that distance. At the moment, your TV tuner is being screamed at, and is basically going deaf.
| link to this comment |
K J Gunnell: Is your TV equiped with an HD tuner? As has been said above, you can't get it without an HD tuner, even though its in SD. After that, it would come down to getting that particular mux, but since your just 13km from Crystal Palace, thats less likely to be a problem.
| link to this comment |
Peter: Ideally, we need the model numbers of the various bits of kit, and how many HDMI's, scarts etc they have.
However, at a guess, I'm assuming your TV has at least 2 HDMI's and a scart. The Sky box (if its not HD) should go via scart into the back of the TV, and thats it. The DVD recorder is likely to have an HDMI, as is the Humax, so use those HDMI ports. The aerial leads goes from the Humax, and then through via the DVD recorder into the back of the TV.
Model numbers would really help.
| link to this comment |
Thursday 10 December 2015 10:35PM
Anthony: 4K TV's are everywhere - thats not the problem. Films are all made in 4K these days, as are an increasing number of programmes (once you've bought the cameras, off you go). And streaming is OK as well, depending on the speed of your feed and the amount of demand. Even recording isn't a problem - you'd either stream, or just have a very large hard drive.
The problem is getting the bandwidth needed by 4K in terms of terrestial broadcasting. The amount of data needed is about 4 times the amount needed for HD, unless compression gets better.