All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Bill: Totally agree as well. If your using it, then pay for it. At 40p a day, its not exactly pricey, either.
The only reason people can get away with it is because when Iplayer was released (again, a service which the BBC pioneered), nobody thought that people were going to dodge the column, and so the legislation didn't cover it. Time the government delivered on their promise to close the loophole.
| link to this comment |
Jon: Glad you got it sorted, and sometimes its the maddest things which cause the problem!
As for attentuators, its kind of whatever works. Toolstation do a variable one for 3.76, and when I used mine the other day to try to calm down the HD box, its worked surprisingly well. On the other hand, when I used it before, it didn't have much effect, and I ended up with fixed ones. I bought from these guys 9dB Coax Plug Inline ATTENUATOR: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics a couple of different ones - 6db, 12db, etc.
If one isn't strong enough, you can always add another. So a 3db, a 6db and a 12db might be fine. They are also pretty cheap at about 1.50 each. They even fit together, so all you need is an extra coax to complete the link - again, Toolstation do shielded ones for 1.19. By the sound of it, something shielded might be no bad thing anyway. Toolstation do really cheap Hook & Loop (Velcro) Cable Ties as well, so you can keep cables away from each other.
See if you can bring it down a little, and if the strength/picture isn't jumping around, leave it be. Good luck.
| link to this comment |
Donna : You havn't given a postcode, so we have no idea where you are in relation to the transmitter, but sounds about right! Samsungs do have sensitive tuners (and thats a lovely TV, btw), and 90% is too high.
If you've a booster, then see if you can take it out of the circuit - that might be enough. If not, and you need to kill that signal a little, look at my suggestions at the end of this thread: Which Freeview channels does the Tacolneston transmitter broadcast?
| link to this comment |
Paul: I bought the Manhatten recently. Its got a really sensitive tuner, and the software can play up a little (I sometimes have to take the plug out of the mains to reset it). However, its not bad for the money, but if your in the market for a PVR anyway, buy a Humax or Panasonic, and kill two birds with one stone.
| link to this comment |
j reed: I assume they are linked via a scart, and a classic problem with a scart is not all the pins engaging, so you get picture, not sound, etc. Try taking the scart out and then reseating it. If its not working any longer, try another - they are really cheap.
| link to this comment |
Peter Garvey: Your TV is telling you 'your' getting no reception, and if you look at your manual, there will be a checklist as to why. If there are no reported problems with the transmitter, then logically it must be you.
Classic problem is that the aerial lead has become loose or fallen out. Check the wire isn't duff, etc.
| link to this comment |
Dan: Sounds like your system has a major problem, but some wires are just hanging on enough to give you some muxes, but others are kaput. Since we've just had gales, and your aerial is on the roof, I suspect your calling out someone to take a look.
| link to this comment |
Martin Bains: Firstly, because the BBC does not take advertising, at least within the UK.
Next, because if it ever did, very commercial channel would scream. In fact commercial channels and other media complain now (we mean you, ITV, and local papers), although such complaints are pretty spurious. Imagine your a newspaper trying to attract online advertising to offset falling print readership - would you want the BBC advertising online?
And finally, because we've already paid for it. Thats what the licence fee is for. Why would I want to pay twice?
| link to this comment |
Saturday 21 November 2015 11:09AM
Briantist: When you read the article, you realise that:
a) The Telegraph actually reported it straight (which makes a change), although they described BBC4 as upmarket, which is the sort of cliche they normally use for Waitrose.
b) The BBC are playing a clever game. By delayer management, paying less for sport, etc, they can show they have listened to their critics. And the push for better Scottish coverage (such as hireing the excellent Sarah Smith as Scottish Editor) show they recognise the complaints from some sectors in Scotland.
However, what they are saying in very clear terms is that its all about the money, and thats down to the government, not them. They had a deal about the closing of the loophole, and its looks like Whittingdale is trying to welch on the deal, hence them talking about it. It boxes the government in on their promise.
And they have mentioned BBC4 and CBBC/Cbeebies, and what will happen if there is no more cash. Thats the big guns. It reminds you of the scene in Blazing Saddles where Cleavon Little holds a gun to his own head. BBC4 and the children's channels are urBBC - its the very essence of public service educational goodness - its what the BBC does, and pretty much everyone else doesn't. They should be their sheild, so why are they putting them on the table?
BBC3 went because they needed to save money, and although it gets more viewers than BBC4, the channel is watched by a fragmented and undemonstrative audience. Yes, they might tweet, but they dont write letters to the Telegraph. BBC4, on the other hand, has a very loyal audience, who do communicate, who do write letters to the Telegraphe, Times and the Daily Mail, as well as their (often Tory) MP.
Same goes for Cebeebies and CBBC. If you dont have kids, they are not on your radar. If you do, you tend to treasure them. CITV isn't awful, but its full of ads and mostly bought in stuff. Pop TV (which my kids have latched onto like junk food) is worse - huge amounts of toys ads, and even some programmes which are in effect ads themselves (My Little Pony, Transformers). The kids are not going to write to their MP, etc when Mr Tumble vanishes from the screen, but their parents will. And their grandparents.
A couple of years back, the GOP in Congress floated a bill to defund what little part of Federal funding PBS received, and then Mitt Romney said the same thing during the 2012 election. It was basically political theatre, although it distracted attention from some even worse things that the GOP actually did do. However, Romney was widely condemned (and worse - laughed at). People got angry. When people tweet phrases like 'Sesame Street is brought to you by the letter F and U', you know you have a problem - Internet Gets Big Bird's Back After Romney Says He'd Defund PBS | WIRED
The middle class Tory voters who love BBC4 are going to get angry. And the BBC will point out whose fault it is. People often complain that the BBC pays James Purnell (often described as a failed Labour politician). They pay him because he thinks like a politican, and isn't stupid. It will be interesting to see what the Government does, because I'm not sure if Whittingdale is singing from the same hymn sheet as Osbourne on tactics.
As for Jesse Norman, there is an old phrase in American politics - 'if you want a funeral, hire an undertaker'. Jesse Norman is, at best, a concern troll. He, much of the committee he heads, and certainly Whittingdales 'advisors', are there to destroy the BBC, for political, ideological and business reasons. They can't just say that, but thats how it is. He will smile, and do his best to murder while still smiling. However, the BBC does have allies (even if the dont regard themselves as such), and I suspect its alerted some of them to what might happen. Clever.