 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> >> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
> >>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
> >>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
> >>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
> >>
> >> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
> >> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
> >
> > The increase in available channels isn't related to the decrease in
> > signal bandwidth per channel due to being digital?
> I'm talking about *bad TV shows*, not bad image quality.
I think that the point was that the increase in number of channels lowered
the average TV program quality because the majority of it is just filler.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:19:28 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> > Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> >> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> >>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital
>> >>> TV. There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high
>> >>> quality programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all*
>> >>> showing utter crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>> >>
>> >> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of
>> >> quality programming happened at the same time. Correlation !=
>> >> causation.
>> >
>> > The increase in available channels isn't related to the decrease in
>> > signal bandwidth per channel due to being digital?
>
>> I'm talking about *bad TV shows*, not bad image quality.
>
> I think that the point was that the increase in number of channels
> lowered
> the average TV program quality because the majority of it is just
> filler.
At least here in the US, the programmes are secondary - the whole point
of commercial television is the commercials - that's where the
broadcasters make their money.
The shows are what draws people to watch.
But of course with things like the "magic skippy button" (ie, DVR and the
ability to skip commercials), broadcasters are having problems justifying
the cost of ad slots since the number of views is lower because
technology allows people to skip commercials.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> At least here in the US, the programmes are secondary - the whole point
> of commercial television is the commercials - that's where the
> broadcasters make their money.
>
> The shows are what draws people to watch.
>
> But of course with things like the "magic skippy button" (ie, DVR and the
> ability to skip commercials), broadcasters are having problems justifying
> the cost of ad slots since the number of views is lower because
> technology allows people to skip commercials.
In the UK, everybody who owns a TV has to pay money to the BBC. The BBC
therefore has no incentive at all to ever show anything. (Well, except I
suppose that if they stopped broadcasting, the government wouldn't be
too amused about it...) In general, the BBC used to produce some pretty
high-quality stuff. (They also have fewER adverts.) Today, even the BBC
is being diluted across too many channels.
I just don't watch TV any more. :-P
Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.
PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV
license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay. If you so much as own a
toaster which contains a CPU with is hypothetically powerful enough to
run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that you could mod your toaster to
watch TV, so you need a TV license.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:02:22 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> In the UK, everybody who owns a TV has to pay money to the BBC. The BBC
> therefore has no incentive at all to ever show anything. (Well, except I
> suppose that if they stopped broadcasting, the government wouldn't be
> too amused about it...) In general, the BBC used to produce some pretty
> high-quality stuff. (They also have fewER adverts.) Today, even the BBC
> is being diluted across too many channels.
>
> I just don't watch TV any more. :-P
>
> Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.
>
> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV
> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay. If you so much as own a
> toaster which contains a CPU with is hypothetically powerful enough to
> run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that you could mod your toaster to
> watch TV, so you need a TV license.
Well, arguing about the TV license fee in the UK is something of a
national pastime. (As you probably know, the funding it also goes to pay
for BBC radio, which doesn't charge a license fee, and for the BBC
website - outside the UK, we see ads unless using ad blocking software)
Comparatively speaking, though, the amount you pay for your TV license is
far less than Cable TV costs in the US - so for me, my reaction is kinda
like most UK residents' reactions to US people complaining about the
price of petrol.
You pay 142.50 GBP per year (about $210 at current exchange rates).
For Comcast basic+digital cable, that covers only about 2.5 months worth
of service (our cable bill is about $100/month, without any premium
channels.
What's more, most of what we watch originates in the UK on the BBC. We'd
happily pay $214/year for what we watch, rather than damn near *$1,200* a
year.
Just like you'd rather pay 0.49 GPB/litre (the cost our gas station down
the block is charging for 87 octane right now) instead of 1.14 GBP/l (the
reported average in the UK right now).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But of course with things like the "magic skippy button" (ie, DVR and the
> ability to skip commercials)
The only way the recorder can do that automatically is if the TV channel
sends metadata telling when the commercial break begins and ends. Unless
they are forced by law to do that (which might be the case in some countries),
the only thing they have to do is to not send that metadata.
In Finland, AFAIK, at least some TV channels send metadata to indicate the
beginning and ending of TV programs, but not to mark commercial breaks
(obviously there's no law that would demand them to do so). That way
recorders can start and stop recording precisely, but won't skip commercial
breaks.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:14:44 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> But of course with things like the "magic skippy button" (ie, DVR and
>> the ability to skip commercials)
>
> The only way the recorder can do that automatically is if the TV
> channel
> sends metadata telling when the commercial break begins and ends. Unless
> they are forced by law to do that (which might be the case in some
> countries), the only thing they have to do is to not send that metadata.
I didn't say anything about it being automatic, now, did I?
I've got a button on my remote programmed to skip forward 30 seconds, and
a button that skips backwards 15 seconds. So I can press the button
about 10 times (give or take) and skip the entire commercial break.
> In Finland, AFAIK, at least some TV channels send metadata to indicate
> the
> beginning and ending of TV programs, but not to mark commercial breaks
> (obviously there's no law that would demand them to do so). That way
> recorders can start and stop recording precisely, but won't skip
> commercial breaks.
I don't know if there's such metadata in the US streams, but there's
always a frame or two that is completely black (so I understand) which is
used by software that strips commercials from recordings.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV
> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay. If you so much as own a
> toaster which contains a CPU with is hypothetically powerful enough to
> run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that you could mod your toaster to
> watch TV, so you need a TV license.
That's nothing. In Finland they are passing a law that every single
household has to pay for TV. Yes, even people who don't own any kind of
TV nor computer and are blind and deaf at the same time.
And yes, every household pays a fixed sum. That means that if you live
alone you will be, effectively paying double than your neighbor who is
living with his/her spouse (at least if both of them have a job).
Also if we proportionate the fixed sum to your yearly income, it means
that the poorer you are, the more you have to pay relative to your income.
For some people this can be a rather large sum of money.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I don't know if there's such metadata in the US streams, but there's
> always a frame or two that is completely black (so I understand) which is
> used by software that strips commercials from recordings.
You just have to hope there aren't such black frames in the actual show...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> At least here in the US, the programmes are secondary - the whole point
> of commercial television is the commercials - that's where the
> broadcasters make their money.
>
> The shows are what draws people to watch.
BTW, once upon a time cable TV was supposed to be free of ads because you were
directly paying for the shows. Somehow, that plan didn't work out...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW, once upon a time cable TV was supposed to be free of ads because you were
> directly paying for the shows. Somehow, that plan didn't work out...
So you pay for cable... and have to watch commercials regarldess?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
