All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.M
Read this: BBC backs replacing licence fee with universal levyMonday 7 September 2015 10:08PM
Macclesfield
David Ramsay: There is no problem with streaming channels now, and the proposed change to the licence fee legislation would close the loophole - if you pay the licence fee, you can stream what you like.
However, its not certain that channels such as Dave or Yesterday can be bothered with streaming, and when it comes to films, these are generally licenced to broadcasters for a number of showings/period. The BBC/ITV could not suddenly stream a lot of the films its shows, because the right owners would not allow it, and sites like Netflix, Amazon or BT might have paid good money for the rights to do just that - stream.
| link to this comment |
hels: You havn't included a postcode, so we dont know where you are in relation to the transmitter. The transmitter looks OK, and in most cases, its peoples systems, not the transmitter thats the problem.
Could be a couple of things: The most likely is that you've got a loose connection or other problem with your aerial system. Since your problem started when you changed the TV, change the aerial lead, since its possible its come loose, etc. Could be the TV is tuned to the wrong transmitter - check that its the right one.
| link to this comment |
Bryan: Although there is a possible weak signal, if your losing mux's entirely, that points to another problem. Check your aerial system - a dodgy cable, etc is a good bet. And the same with your friend - just because both of you have a problem does not mean its universal. The fly lead is any easy fix, and that might cure it.
| link to this comment |
Charles Stuart: Be careful that we dont end up in 'what I like' land. Everyone pays the licence fee, and for every person who values a deep and meaningful science programme (me), there a lots who do not, but do watch 'The Voice'. And thats what they value, or indeed both programmes.
1. Salaries - the onscreen talents salaries are £181m - that sound a lot, but its not a huge slice of the operating budget. Many are freelancers, so their rate is bascally set by the market. Its likely that they could earn more on other channels.
2, Actors again work in a marketplace, where 80% plus of the profession is 'resting' at any one time. Rates are set by the union, and although big stars might get a good deal, they will often work for rather less than the going rate for the right script. I'm pretty sure that Maggie G. worked for vastly less than she normally gets paid for The Honourable Woman, because it interested her. And the BBC does programmes nobody else makes, so big stars will make programmes for them just becuase they can. Thats how Radio 6 gets some amazing presenters - Iggy Pop really doesn't need the money!
And since a good part of all British TV is made by independents, the cost of a salary for something like New Tricks or GBBO is borne by the porduction company - the BBC will pay £X for that programme.
3. A rep company often comes up as a solution, but its unworkable in practice, especially since actors are so plentiful. Much cheaper and better to recruit what you need, when you need it.
4. less than the industry rate. Remember that the BBC has open books, and so its easy for hacks to nose around. ITV and Sky - no. They might get some headline figures for the CEO, but other than track ads for execs, etc, its all a bit sensitive. However, compare the pay for BBC, C4, C5, ITV and Sky heads - the BBC head is paid a lot less than pretty much everyone else, and has a lot more headaches.
5. A lot, but they are not the most expensive programme. The format did cost, yes, but thats not a major cost. White floor shows are not as expensive as drama, and can often deliver a bigger audience, at least one that justifies the cost. Same with reality shows - more bang for your buck. The BBC spends a lot on drama, and far more than Sky or ITV - thats the really costly programming.
6. I bet they have. But there is no substitute for having someone on the ground, and remember for the Attenborough's, etc, the foriegn version will often have their own voiceover, etc. You do need someone will to spend 6 months in the jungle willing to get that 2 min of footage, and that does cost. Its cannot be done in a studio.
Personally, I can't understand why news presenters have to be carted off to the scence of a disaster, especially on the Today programme, but its not probably a big part of any budget.
The BBC1 is not going to sell Radio1, etc. Its doesn't do privitisation. What it will do is keep as much going for as long as it can. Unfortunately everyone wants something cut, but nobody can agree on what that should be. More high quality science programmes? Yes, but having a 2 hour history of microscopes on BBC1 at peak time is unlikely to work! Horses for courses.
In reality, the BBC does programmes nobody else does - listening to The Reunion this week and was amazed that Bennetts monologues 'Talking Heads' were on BBC1 in primetime! The only reason there is a real problem is money, and thats the governments fault.
| link to this comment |
Lorraine Young: The channel is one that needs to connect to the internet, via her TV. If her TV isn't smart (which sounds like it isn't), she can use another box, such a recorder which does go on the internet, such a Humax PVR, or you can buy the Manhattan Freeview HD box, which can go on the net, for £44. That gives you an HD tuner and Iplayer, etc. They are not bad for the money.
| link to this comment |
Kevin Finn: If you can find any programmes/films on any channel which allow you switch on and speech. sound effects and music at will, let us know! In fact HD audio is now coming to music production, but the best way if improving the sound from the TV is to improve the speakers - a pair of 10w speakers cannot give you the best sound, and therefore invest in a sound system. If you can't see the action, thats seldom down to the lighting on the production.
You say that there is no need for the BBC to 'make massive use of repeats/re-runs', but then state 'the BBC has programmes in its archives which many modern viewers have not seen.'. So you want repeats, but dont want repeats? In reality, we all want new programmes, and complain about repeats. In fact the BBC has a policy of not showing repeats in primetime, and frankly, a lot of programmes in its archive would not be acceptable to a modern audience in either productions values or quality. Original programming costs money, and because the BBC does far more of it than anyone else, thats where much of the money goes.
'It also needs to accept that for years it has allowed "stars" to have unnecessarily large overinflated salaries simply because viewers liked them rather than accepting its financial limits and staying within them. '
Sorry, but this is simply derp. The BBC tends to pay on screen talent less than its rivals, but gets away with it because it will often make programmes nobody else does, and can therefore attract talent which would otherwise go elsewhere. ITV and Sky pay more than the BBC does, its as simple as that. The idea that the BBC could get away with paying little more than bus money and luncheon vouchers is some thing thats suggested frequently, but in the real world, who would you get? In fact you can see exactly what you would get - Local TV channels have onscreen 'talent' that are pretty much doing it for free. How many people watch them?
If the BBC already pays (often far) less than the market rate, how can they keep or attract staff? Many people, such as costume designers, makeup artists, set builders, etc would simply go elsewhere. A cut is salary to the point where people leave is cutting staff.
The BBC is a horse being starved by its owner, who at the same time is making it carry more and more. And the owner beats it as well. A sensible person would want a decent funding level restored, and for some of the extra burden to be removed. If its done something wrong, make sure its corrected, but generally, its 'crimes' are ones whch could happen to any media organisation.Yet strangely, its only the BBC that gets slammed by politicans and much of the press. The BBC never covered up Savile's crimes, nor did it hacks a dead schoolgirls phone, but look where the coverage seems to be concentrated.
| link to this comment |
Keith Sheppard: 'You say many households were unaware they were watching a BBC programme. What mystifies me is why this should actually matter to a public service briadcaster.'
Because if they are unaware that its a BBC programme that they are enjoying, they are more likely to forget that its the licence fee that is paying for it. People who complain about the licence fee tend to think that they dont watch the BBC, despite all evidence to the contrary. The DOGS, etc help to remind them of this.
DOGS are not perfect, but I have to admit I would prefer to watch in HD if I had the chance, DOGS or not.
| link to this comment |
Nick: Yet according to both RAJAR and BARB figures, BBC radio and TV programmes continue to be very popular with audiences, and dominate the top 30's in TV terms, with Radio 2 being the single most popular radio station in the UK.
How dare they make programmes that actually do tend to 'satisfy the nation'!
To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson: 'The good thing about facts is that they are true whether or not you believe in them.'
| link to this comment |
Nick Anderson: If you put your postcode into this site, you should bring up a load of links, including DigitalUK's website. If you just go to the DigitalUK site, put in your postcode and click 'detailed view', it will tell you exactly what bearing the transmitters closest to you are, plus frequencies, expected signal, etc.
| link to this comment |
Monday 7 September 2015 6:08PM
Macclesfield
Mark Chadwick : Your just 16km from Talcneston, and DigitalUK reckons you should have a great reception. Logically, the first thing to check is your aerial - if there is a broekn cable, etc, then that will obviously mean a total loss of signal. Try just replacing the old aerial lead from the TV to the wall - cheap and easy to do, and that might be the problem.
Unfortunately you retuned the TV. assuming it was on the correct transmitter, you've possibly retuned it to an incorrect one, much further away, and only just enough to lock on, but not enough to actually get you a working signal. Since Talcneston is a much higher frequency number than the rest of the possible transmitters, thats possible. Try manually tuning the TV in and see. If it works, great, but its highly likely that your aerial system isn't working perfectly.