On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:20:54 -0500, Warp wrote:

> 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...

Yes, or deal with them when they show up.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:48:59 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> 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...

Yeah; I was watching Damages yesterday and had to laugh - there's a 
"warning" for "mature content" because of "strong language" - it's OK if 
the strong language is transmitted over a wire, but not if it's 
"airborne", apparently.

The FCC is a weird organisation at times.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:00:21 -0500, Warp wrote:

> 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?

No, that's what the magic skippy button I previously referred to is 
for. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   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.

OK, that's pretty special, right there.

So even if you don't have electricity, you need a licence? Even if 
you're blind and so cannot physically watch it? Wow. It's like a license 
to print money! :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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. 

You could try reading the BBC's Royal Charter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf

> (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.
> 

And what would you know about an acid trip, good or bad?

> 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.
> 

You do your credibility no good with statements like that.
You only pay the licence fee if you have a receiver that can receive UK 
TV broadcasts.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> 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.

But still, for the price, there are some exceptional programs and coverage 
of sports events.  Was there any other broadcaster in the world that covered 
pretty much every winter olympic event with no adverts?  Watching football 
on ITV (the commercial channel) is painful, the show is essentially adverts 
with breaks for the national anthems and the 45:00.0000000 halfs.  Most of 
the documentaries the BBC produce are world-class.  I'd happily pay my 
license fee for just the sport and documentaries.

> Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.

Most of them are painful to watch, yes.

> 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.

I didn't have a TV for several years and never paid.  After I got the first 
letter from them, I just replied and said I didn't have a TV, never heard 
anything else from them after that.

> 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.

I don't think that's quite true - they take your word for it unless they can 
prove otherwise (by detecting conventional TV receiving equipment in your 
home, or I guess nowadays detecting your IP address accessing live TV).

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> But still, for the price, there are some exceptional programs and 
> coverage of sports events.  Was there any other broadcaster in the world 
> that covered pretty much every winter olympic event with no adverts?  
> Watching football on ITV (the commercial channel) is painful, the show 
> is essentially adverts with breaks for the national anthems and the 
> 45:00.0000000 halfs.  Most of the documentaries the BBC produce are 
> world-class.  I'd happily pay my license fee for just the sport and 
> documentaries.

I don't watch sport, but the BBC has David Attenborough. That alone 
makes it pretty much worth it.

They also used to have all sort of other sciency stuff that I enjoyed, 
but apparently dumb is the new intelligent, so we just get crap now. :-(

>> Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.
> 
> Most of them are painful to watch, yes.

I especially like the advert for adverts... WTF?

>> 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.
> 
> I didn't have a TV for several years and never paid.  After I got the 
> first letter from them, I just replied and said I didn't have a TV, 
> never heard anything else from them after that.

Really? Interesting. Obviously I've never tried this [I don't have a 
house, after all], but people who do have told me that basically if you 
say you don't have a TV, they won't believe you and will demand that you 
pay a license anyway.

> I don't think that's quite true - they take your word for it unless they 
> can prove otherwise (by detecting conventional TV receiving equipment in 
> your home, or I guess nowadays detecting your IP address accessing live 
> TV).

What do you mean "your" IP? I don't know about you, but my IP address 
appears to change every 24 hours...

Post a reply to this message

> Really? Interesting. Obviously I've never tried this [I don't have a 
> house, after all], but people who do have told me that basically if you 
> say you don't have a TV, they won't believe you and will demand that you 
> pay a license anyway.

What they probably meant is they didn't bother to inform them they didn't 
have a TV, and kept receiving the reminder letters to pay.  Either way they 
are going to come and check your house at some point (they have a list of 
households with no valid TV license).

> What do you mean "your" IP? I don't know about you, but my IP address 
> appears to change every 24 hours...

And I don't know about your ISP, but mine keeps a log of who had what IP. 
No idea if the TV licensing people are allowed to get this information or 
not.  If not they have other ways to check if you're watching live TV (like 
correlating the small lighting changes visible from your windows at night 
with the broadcast signal - yes they do that).

Post a reply to this message

>> What do you mean "your" IP? I don't know about you, but my IP address 
>> appears to change every 24 hours...
> 
> And I don't know about your ISP, but mine keeps a log of who had what 
> IP. No idea if the TV licensing people are allowed to get this 
> information or not.  If not they have other ways to check if you're 
> watching live TV (like correlating the small lighting changes visible 
> from your windows at night with the broadcast signal - yes they do that).

I don't know how much the license fee is, but I would imagine it's 
peanuts compared to the cost of such a sophisticated covert surveylence 
operation...

Post a reply to this message

> I don't know how much the license fee is, but I would imagine it's peanuts 
> compared to the cost of such a sophisticated covert surveylence 
> operation...

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/detection-and-penalties-top5/

Seems quite profitable to drive round the list of addresses with no license, 
you can probably pick up a few 1000 GBP fines each day :-)

Post a reply to this message