All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
nick: You dont 'even with one of those flat things where you have to dance around the room to see the picture right' - I regularly get asked this by customers, and I ask them to see for themselves, you can see from a 170 angle (not that you'd want to).
You can use whatever box you like to watch/record either on Freesat or Freeview (your probably going to need one anyway), but why not use the Sudbury (Full) transmitter, rather than Alderburgh?
| link to this comment |
Mark E7: You should be getting an excellent signal, as you say, even with a portable aerial (normally a pain). Signal strength should be around 70-80%, not 100% - its not your strength which is too low, its the quality. I'm going to suggest my normal solution - high signal strength? Having said that, Sony tuners are really robust.
Hopefully, someone can come up with another suggestion, but whjy not dig out another portable aerial and see if it makes any difference?
| link to this comment |
PJH: I think we are looking at convergence - I listen on DAB/internet at home (both via radio and Ipod, FM in the car (still no DAB radio), and if you want high quality, then internet/Freeview. How you listen depends on what you have - basically its a smorgasbord.
And its going to get more complex as mobile internet streaming comes more standard/cheaper via 3/4G and possibly via sat navs. And as more radios have FM, DAB and internet (plus plugins for other devices and straight streaming capacity), FM gets squeezed even more.
| link to this comment |
Brandon: If you've lost all reception on all three TV's (and they are linked by the same aerial), then your aerial is the problem! Check the connections to where it splits. If there is a problem with reception, we need a postcode...
| link to this comment |
Brianist: I've been mulling over your observations for a couple of days, but Roger has outlined a couple of my concerns about taking just the headline profit figure. Plenty of banks had great profits, but their balance sheets contained a great many problems, and it might be the reverse in this case.
Firstly, the RPI might not be the best yardstick for TV/Film production. The sectors inflation rate has generally run ahead of RPI, due to increased labour costs, etc (this is nothing new - Hollywood producers complained of this back in the 20's!). healthcare is another sector where this happens, so we do have to be careful about using a non-sector figure.
Secondly, although we think of Worldwide's business model to be largely one of getting stuff from the BBC (where its paid for), and then selling it, for a profit, Worldwides operations are wider and more complex. It co-owns publishing and production companies, produces its own material, supplies other broadcasters with material (America's NPR news takies a great deal of the BBC World Service feed), acts as a distributor for indie producers, sells formats, handles merchandising rights, and has BBC channels abroad, such as BBC America.
In the case of many prgrammes, Worldwide commissions and pays for the production Televisual | NEWS & COMMENTS - we will see it here, but the productions costs are not borne by the 'home' BBC - think of it as payment in kind, not just cash.
It has to buy the rights for UK shows from the 'home' BBC (as Roger points out, Thompson might have demanded better upfront fees, thus costing Worldwide more, and making more for 'home' BBC), as well as spend on indie productions BBC Worldwide Eyes Record Spending on U.K. Content - The Hollywood Reporter - and of course this investment has to come from somewhere.
The costs of buying 'Top Gear', etc sound high, but the brand is valuable, and the format is popular - in the long term, this will be a good investment.
The third thing to bear in mind is that every business is subject to change, year on year. Currency rates, the state of the economy (a commercial broadcaster is vunerable to ad spend, and obviously may not buy so much material) and what the market is like varies from year to year. I bet that the spike in profits might have had a lot to do with format sales, such as 'Strictly' - there will be a continuing payment while in prodcution, but there is also initial fees. Such fees can bulk up one years accounts, but of course formats cannot be churned out every year.
The fourth caveat is very important, and is closely linked to the second - Worldwide cannot borrow money, as you point out (unique in a billion dollar internation business!), nor can it fund any channel outside the UK from the license fee. Therefore, it has to reinvest its own profits to fund future growth. It cannot both give a higher return to its 'shareholder' and continue to expand commercially, at least in the short term. However, the money it does not give to the BBC now (and of course the BBC benefits from programmes Worldwide make) will allow a better rate of return in years to come.
Roger is spot on - we have to look at the bigger picture, and it would be interesting to see how ITV overseas works, and what its business is like.
As for the BBC payoffs - stupid, but highups do tend to end up with a sense of entitlement.
However, the BBC is probably one of the most self critical organistations out there, to the point of self-flagulation. Small problems (which in an organisation of its size are always going to happen) are blown up, often by the print media (which has its own agenda), and politicians (ditto). The BBC then reports this, thus making everything seem much worse. Contrast this with the Murdoch press, which mentioned almost nothing about the phone scandal, and then tried to blame the Guardian and the BBC for covering it.
I'm much more concerned about reports that the BBC Trust will be killed off, and Ofcom take over. Having had dealings with Ofcom, I can attest to it being one the most useless watchdogs out there, and something the BBC has no need of.
The BBC is one of the best forms of 'soft power' ot there, and we would be poorer without it. Bob Meade might want a slimmed down PBS - have a look/listening at PBS in the US - very good in many ways, but its often middle of the road (at best), lacks coherence, and certainly starved of the sort of resources which the BBC has. You don't want to go down that road.
| link to this comment |
Brianist: You make a very convincing case! Certainly a sector only inflation rate both explains lower profits, but also masks poor performance.
Looking at the various parts of the organisation, its clearly Global Brands which has the major problem, and its clear that this needs looking at. However, some these losses are single year, stemming from:
' The division also incorporates results for Lonely Planet before its sale to NC2 Media in March 2013. This year, Global Brands sales were affected by the transfer of BBC.com to BBC Global News Ltd, and the closure of Good Food magazine in Australia. Headline sales were down 3.8% at £141.1m (2011/12: £146.6m) with headline losses of £26.3m (2011/12: loss of £17.3m).'
These are one-offs, but since it made a loss the previous year as well, your right to point up the loss, and hopefully this division can turned around. Its brands are certainly valuable!
Your right about the graph - I'm going to dig into the figures when I get the chance...
Personally, I think that the ban on borrowing has probably been no bad thing, since it at least stopped the sort of reckless expansion which we saw some years ago. Instead, Worldwide has had to grow steadily, although it has made mistakes (Lonely Planet being the most obvious - print in a digital world?). However, it is strange that such a large organisation is restricted in this way, and probably frustrating.
Perhaps before BBC exec (or their agents/lawyers) do anything with money, they should think how its going to look on the front of the Daily Mail - it certainly would make their lives easier. Unfortunately, the senior team at the BBC is looked at in a very different way from any other channel, which smacks of a double standard, but its the world we live in. Any problem is used by the BBC's enemies, and frankly, they should not give them any ammunition.
On the other hand, Nick Higham does not have breath extra life into every tiny 'problem'. Like you, being critical of the BBC when its due is because we want it to survive and grow. Unfortunately, not all critics have the same motives.
The ST's report comes from government sources, and this latest 'scandal' is a casus belli - government has long wanted the BBC under its thumb. It could be a balloon, to see what the reaction will be, but I suspect they mean it. Patten will put up a fight though...
| link to this comment |
Fred Perkins: How exactly is the BBC 'distorting competition'?
The market is outside the UK, and sells programming, etc in the same way that everyone else does. Besides, once that programme is made for the UK, would you prefer it sit on a shelf, never to be seen again? By selling that programme abroad, it offsets the cost to the license fee payer, is a sensible use of resources, and to do otherwise would illogical and unbusiness-like.
Sky actually has an income of £7.25 billion http://corporate.sky.com/…res, makes a profit of over a billion (we will refrain from mentioning its 'interesting' tax history), and has no PSB requirement.
The BBC has some £5 billion in income (about 20% from commercial activities), but the licence fee has been frozen for the last three years (and will be for a further three), the £264 million that the FO paid to fund the World Service (probably the cheapest soft power ever) is to be stopped, with the BBC funding that as well. £150 million a year for rural broadband (why?), £25m for rural broadcasting, and the costs of S4C, etc. BBC licence fee frozen at £145.50 for six years | Media | theguardian.com .
So its real world income is gradually falling, its expected to pay for a lot more, and of course it has a PSB remit; indeed, if its was not for the PSB sector, many of the people currently using Freeview would get nothing at all. And although it has to consider ratings, its hardly likely that it would make many of the programmes it does if ratings were its main objective.
I suspect you have an ideological objection to any state run organisation having more than a token presence, yet I'm sure that the reality of a minimalist PSB would be one which you would be uncomfortable with.
Looking at the US template,there would be no drama (PBS buys theirs in, mostly from the UK!), no comedy, no sport (too expensive), and current affairs would tend towards the safe, with constant fear of government criticisim (the GOP tried to defund PBS some years ago, even through the amount the US spends on PBS is minimal).http://www.pbs.org/#
Documentaries would be good, there would be childrens shows, and there are excellent programmes on both radio and TV , but you would see and hear constant drives for funds, mentions of corporate/foundation support and even the chance to donate your old car for local public radio. And don't think American's are universally happy with their current system - this is a very interesting discussion about its future The Future Of Television | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR
True, its certainly not National Lampoon's 'European Vacation', and its 4 channels showing cheesemaking, but the BBC gives a breadth of programming that is difficult to match, certainly for the money that we pay yearly. Frankly, we get a bargain.
There is one other reason to keep the BBC in its current form. As one ITV exec said many years ago, 'it keeps the rest of us honest'.
| link to this comment |
mick: I think your making work for yourself. Your new aerial is probably pointing at Lark Stoke (bearing 344 degrees), which is your nearest transmitter (only 11km away), and your best bet (although Sutton Coldfield is only 7 degrees off that).
The TV will normally self tune to either the strongest signal, or the lowest channel number. Since Lark Stoke is only channel 26 and is very close, thats the one it should go to. Dont worry too much about signal strength - signal quality should be 9-10, and strength actually around 75%, but that will vary with different channels (BBC tend to be pretty strong). Just let the TV do its thing, and everything will probably be fine.
| link to this comment |
Saturday 7 September 2013 7:43PM
Rex: As I just commented to Viv, your signal strength should be 75%, not 100%. However, Winchester is also a funny area, since a lot of it is in a bowl (I used to live there, so I'm aware of the sometimes iffy reception).
The strange thing is why reception is knocked out for 15min each evening. If it is the same time each day, then it sounds like electrical interference - perhaps a boiler switch, etc, but why its only 15 min goodness knows. Try some detective work, and see if there is something that comes on at that time, it might be the source of the problem.