All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
eric swan: You'd have to read your manual, but my old Goodmans box (they are made by the same company) used to do this, and we simply pushed one of the up/down/side buttons or OK and they disappeared.
| link to this comment |
Kbryt: Except your reply sounds exactly like something from the Daily Mail. Of course you could be reading other papers, but it still does not change the reality that your opinions seem to have no basis in quantifiable fact.
And you havn't bothered to supply a postcode, which means we still have no idea what your reception should actually be. TV reception is about physics - and if the position of the transmitter and your aerial has not changed, then something else has. Thats not the fault of the TV companies, thats down to you.
| link to this comment |
MikeP: Except its not a marketing mistake.
I'm actually a total non-sports fan, but I understand that if you are a sports fan, its important to you. And unlike movies or TV, its something that you'll want to watch live (hence the reason why pubs have Sky Sports). So if Sky or BT has the rights to certain matches, etc, then you'll have no choice but to sign up if you want to watch those fixtures. And sports fans are willing to pay a lot of money for that access, which means they are highly profitable customers. And if you add the sports package to full movie/TV packages, then you can charge a lot of money Changing channels: cost of top pay-TV bundles rises to £100 a month | Media | The Guardian
However, that coverage is not totally price insensitive - and some point they (or perhaps their wives) ar going to say 'how much!', and then they might think of cancelling completely or possibly switching providers. So providers, having spent eye watering amounts of money of sports rights, will do their best to extract as much money as possible from customers whilst keeping them.
Confusing and complex packages, sudden deals which might not always pan out, and of course adding something whilst increasing prices are a favourite. My Virgin internet package now has faster speeds, yet strangely has also increased in price. I didn't ask them for a higher speed, yet Virgin say they are doing me a favour...
Of course this is pretty standard in the US. Since cable is generally the way most people get their TV, consumers there are very used to 'bundling' and hate it. Basic cable package? Over 100 channels, but often includes sports channels that you might not use, but still have to pay for. That helps spread the cost of sports to everyone, not just the potentially highly profitable sports fans. There is an argument that niche channels would vanish if viewing packages were 'a la cartre', but most resistance has come from the big content providers. In fact both cable companies and consumers are fighting back, since the expensive sports rights might not actually pay for themselves anyway
Pay-TV Providers Bid to End Sports Networks' Win Streak - WSJ
You can see that some of the cable providers (who are themselves widely hated by consumers) are starting to offer slimmed down packages, without sports Fox, NBC Universal Reject Verizon's New TV Packages | Media - Advertising Age - becuase their consumers dont really want them. Yet big sports providers (who have paid big bucks for the rights) are fighting this, since they'd be left with fewer viewers.
Sports, as the WSJ article makes clear, is a steady market. Live sports can't be watched via Netflix, etc, and audiences remain much the same as they have been. In the case of BT, they've added market share because of the sports rights they hold, and they assume that more people want to watch than do currently. It costs them nothing to 'give' you sports as part of your infinity package, but might make you stay with them. And at the same time, they can argue a higher price, because you've got 'more value'.
| link to this comment |
Nick: Facts really are an alien concept for you, aren't they?
OK, so you hate Eastenders, The Voice and Strictly - but these are all big ratings winners for the BBC, two of which are on a Saturday night and are certainly classed as family entertainment. Which proves you totally wrong. Just watch something else at that time if you dont like them.
Xmas 2014 was 63% repeats ACROSS ALL FOUR MAIN CHANNELS Christmas TV repeats raised in Parliament - BBC News . That included ITV, which basically showed the cheapest programming it could reasonably get away with, on the reasonable grounds that commercially, it doesn't make sense to spend a fortune.
The BBC actually explained what they show over Christmas, and why http://www.bbc.co.uk/blog…51f. They spend far more on Xmas programming than the rest of the channels.
And you can't complain that there are no classic comedies shown on the BBC (there are, starting with Dad's Army and Only Fools and Horses this week, plus Yes Minister, Allo Allo and Are You Being Served on BBC2 just this afternoon), and then complain about too many repeats!
BTW - Neo liberal's believe in free market capitalism and the deregulation of the state https://en.wikipedia.org/…ism, whilst 'lefties' (how charmingly old school that word is) most certainly don't. If you going to mindlessly insult people, at least try to get the terms you use vaguely correct.
'Facepalm's all round, I think.
| link to this comment |
MikeP: I think the marketing departments consider what we might want, but then look at how much extra income they might make!
| link to this comment |
Ray Baldacchino: Except 97% of us watch that 'entertainment' on a regular basis, without be coerced into doing so. And how about if we turn your arguement around. People pay for Sky, and it mostly shows entertainment, therefore it cannot show anything factual or serious. Does that sound logical? No, so why should the BBC not be allowed to show anything entertaining?
And your derping about advertising. Brianist has shown over and over again that even if the BBC took all the TV advertising review for the UK, it still would not come even close to covering the cost of running the BBC, and would bankrupt all the other advertising based broadcasters as well.
| link to this comment |
J Richards: Just put your postcode into the site, and there should be a link to the DAB coverage site.
Frankly, just try it. DAB radios just tune themselves in - so if you can get it, then you'll get it. True, you might get a rubbish signal, but it does depend on where you are in the house, if the washing machine is on, etc . You can improve the signal by using a bigger aerial, but until you've given it a try, you will not know what baseline your operating from.
Looking at the predictor page https://ukfree.tv/radio/p…tion - you look to be on the edge of reception of some of the transmitters.
| link to this comment |
David: You can check your expected reception by puuting your postcode into the site and then clicking on the links. However, a good guess would be to look at your aerial lead and go from there. Could be loose, or the cable damaged. Then follow it back up to the aerial. Your losing a mux, but cables can do funny things - just because a weak mux is OK, whilst a strong mux goes does not mean that there isn't a problem.
| link to this comment |
M
What would you like to see on Freeview in place of BBC three?Saturday 15 August 2015 10:44AM
Macclesfield
Dunworking: Much as I'd like all sport to be corralled off, so I dont have to ever see it, there are real problems with a sports only channel for the BBC.
Firstly, for lots of people (not me), 'normal viewing' does include sport.
Unless there is constant sport, that channel is going to have a lot of dead time, and since the BBC really cannot afford much in the way of sports coverage these days, whats it going to fill it with? Its the reason why 5 Live and Talksport dont just do sport. Sky can, but they are richer than God.
And sports dont come on consistantly. During Wimbledon Fortnight, great, especially if its a World Cup/Olympic Year - they will hardly be able to keep up. Other times its going to be whats happening in the Barsetshire Egg and Spoon race, because thats pretty much it. How are you going to fill the rest of the time?
Since BBC3 shares with CBBC, the slot is from 7pm until 6am. OK for football in the winter on a weekday. Weekend viewing - not going to happen. Wimbwldon diring the day - ditto. And the same goes for events outside that slot worldwide. Rio is 4 hours behind the UK, which might work if a race starts 3pm local time. On the other hand, the Winter Olympics might not work at all.
Best idea. Pretty much as it is now. BBC2 handles the day to day stuff like Wimbledeon, special stuff on 1, and overflow to BBC3 after 9pm (CBBC is being extended). Or stop sport all together....
| link to this comment |
Tuesday 4 August 2015 8:34PM
Alexei Romanov: Because life is strange. Your missing a single mux, which is normally amoungst the most powerful - in fact its 100,000W. However, if you have a look back at past questions, it has sometimes been the case that a stronger mux has vanished, whilst 'weaker' ones have remained. The problem has normally been a frayed cable. Remember that whilst you might think that the other channels are 'perfect', checking the signal strength might show that they are just about OK, but the BBC mux is below the level where you get a signal at all.
It might be nothing to do with that at all, but what else could it be?