And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:52:29 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:

> 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.

'Digital television is great it will allow many more channels to be  
broadcast within the same frequency range' = money to be split between  
four channels rather than just the one = the government scrabbling to get  
more broadcasters to fill all these channels = really cheap television.

Oo four Shopping Channels, how did I ever cope before "Russia Today", and  
where would I lose money if not for "SuperCasino" or "The Big Deal"?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> (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.

If we were still limited by analogue bandwidth to only 4 or 5 channels, I 
fail to see how 99% of the rubbish channels that there are now would even 
exist.  The fact that digital allowed a couple orders of magnitude more 
channels to be available IMO caused the average quality of progamming 
available to drop massively.

Do what I do, simply program in the best channels, ignore the other 99% of 
channels, and suddenly you can be back to almost a reasonable average 
quality level.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> 
> I wonder if you transmitted analogue at the power where digital starts
> to fail, what the analogue picture would look like?  Where my mum lives
> they still transmit both, the analogue TV is transmitted at 500 kW and
> the digital at 20 kW...
> 

Well yes, there still might be more power on the analog signal. What I
ment is that while digital signal goes either off or soundless blocks,
analog signal just starts having noice and even to very poor S/N -ratio
you still can know what's going on in the transmission (if you really
want to).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 3/8/2010 9:18 AM, scott 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.
>
> If we were still limited by analogue bandwidth to only 4 or 5 channels,
> I fail to see how 99% of the rubbish channels that there are now would
> even exist. The fact that digital allowed a couple orders of magnitude
> more channels to be available IMO caused the average quality of
> progamming available to drop massively.
>
> Do what I do, simply program in the best channels, ignore the other 99%
> of channels, and suddenly you can be back to almost a reasonable average
> quality level.
>
>
Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels 
**did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an 
illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since* 
have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4 
different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in 
some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck, you 
can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all only 
had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5% of them 
with specialized HD versions.

Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there 
10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of 
maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is 
that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick the 
ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it, and b) 
you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get 10 
channels 15 years back.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels 
> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an 
> illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since* 
> have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4 
> different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in 
> some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck, you 
> can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all only 
> had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5% of them 
> with specialized HD versions.
> 
> Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there 
> 10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of 
> maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is 
> that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick the 
> ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it, and b) 
> you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get 10 
> channels 15 years back.

Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?

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

Post a reply to this message

On 3/8/2010 1:35 AM, scott wrote:
>> In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal should
>> be as good as any other,
>
> Unless it is *only just* capable of handling the signal, in which case
> any additional interference (eg you put a new device or another cable
> next to the HDMI cable or receiver, a car drives past, someone turns on
> a motor, etc) and then it will stop working. I have never seen anything
> like this though, even my $10 5 meter DVI->HDMI cable has worked
> flawlessy at 1080p while being tangled up behind 100 other cables behind
> my computer and TV.
>

Yeah. Bigger concern if house wiring and splitters. Lot of idiots are 
still using older 800hz splitters, when digital requires *at minimum* 
1000hz, or 2500hz, if you want to have the best range (though that is 
overkill, in "most" cases), and 90% of the houses are wired with coax 
wiring that is about half the width of the stuff now recommended. By the 
estimate of my cable company people, the wiring we have in the house, 
just by itself, is cutting the signal by probably 10%. Add in a 30% drop 
for two splitters, to get to my computer, while also running the TV off 
of it, and I am still OK. Add in another, or some moron slapping in a 
3-4 way, which drops it more like 25%, or worse, or a cable that's too 
short, causing signal deflections, and you lose over half of your 
signal, and even your digital cable box will fail to work, never mind 
your modem.

It can make a difference, depending on local noise, length, if you do 
something dumb, like making short loops in your wire, etc., or somewhat 
thinner wires. It all can add up, but, its still not worth the insane 
cost of the high end cables, when talking about things like HDMI (not 
unless you have some serious need for that quality).

Mind.. This is also probably like the difference between buying 
something that has a clear, "This much variance exists in the part", 
vs., "You will probably be OK, but we are not even bothering to print 
variances, signal loss per length, or other data on this cable, because 
we just buy cheap wire to make it, don't bother checking too careful, 
and for all we know it came from anything from a telephone box to a toy 
car. Oh, and we don't guarantee that any of it is well soldiered, and 
properly grounded either." The ones "with" that information stamped on 
them tend to cost 3 times as much. **But**, they also fail 90% less 
often, and cause less problems (you don't want to know how many cheap 
splitters I have gone through, before they tore all of them out and 
replaced them with ones that "do" have those specs clearly printed on 
them). Cables.. are likely much the same. You get what they are willing 
to charge you to guarantee.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 3/8/2010 1:44 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
>> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
>> illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*
>> have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4
>> different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in
>> some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck,
>> you can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all
>> only had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5%
>> of them with specialized HD versions.
>>
>> Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there
>> 10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of
>> maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is
>> that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick
>> the ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it,
>> and b) you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get
>> 10 channels 15 years back.
>
> Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
>
The US. Why?

But, I am serious. Yes, you have had some added, like the Food Network, 
but 90% of the rest of the crap is new channels, tacked on by existing 
broadcasters, as part of their big name channels. Some places they just 
end up with goofy letter combos, which make it hard to figure out which 
mega-corp, who has been making crap shows since the 70s sitcom era, they 
belong to. They certainly are not "new stations", per say, just more of 
them, from the same idiots.

This is one of the reasons they "bundle" them. You might be willing to, 
say.. pay for the one where House airs, but not the 6 other ones from 
the same company, which show endless garbage, which you have neither the 
time, inclination, or remaining brain cells, to watch. Mostly the time 
though, since you would have to run 150 TVs at the same time to "watch" 
all the shit they think you want. In reality, you are probably paying 
for what could be condensed into *maybe* two channels, if they a) spread 
it out a bit, so things where not always on at the same time, allowed 
yourself on channel to record, and spent the same few hours each day 
actually watching shows. I.e., 800 hours of programming, per day, when 
you maybe watch 2-3? Hell. Nuke about 50% of that, including all the 
sports channels, and give me, assuming it still exists, something like 
the Playboy Channel, or something, if you actually want me to watch 
something. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

>> Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
>>
> The US. Why?

I think the situation is slightly different in the UK.

But sure, I'll go with your basic premis. There's a lot of free stuff 
that you used to have to pay for.

(I don't know about you, but where I am, at least 25% of the channels 
have "+1" in their name. Yes, that's right. They rebroadcast the stuff 
again in case you missed it the first time - even though that was in 
1970 or so...)

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

Post a reply to this message

> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels **did** 
> exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an illegal 
> satellite unit, to watch them.

Maybe in the US.  In the UK we only got a satellite service around 1990, and 
cable TV much later which still is not popular at all.  The majority of 
people used terrestrial receivers to get the 4 available channels via 
analogue (they added a 5th, but bandwidth problems meant a lot of people 
couldn't get it properly), and recently ~50 channels via digital.

In the UK, the only channels now that existed before digital TV are the ones 
that came over from Sky, like Sky News, Sky Sports News and CNN and the 
imported Viva channel (can't see anymore on the listings that might have 
existed earlier).  All the rest (the majority) were either added as 
additions to the "big 4" analogue channels or created from scratch after 
digital TV came.

The channel list is here:

http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Channels

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:42:10 -0000, Patrick Elliott  
<sel### [at] npgcablecom> did spake thusly:

> On 3/8/2010 9:18 AM, scott wrote:
>>>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.

<snip snip>

> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels  
> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an  
> illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*  
> have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4  
> different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in  
> some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck, you  
> can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all only  
> had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5% of them  
> with specialized HD versions.
>
> Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there  
> 10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of  
> maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is  
> that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick the  
> ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it, and b)  
> you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get 10  
> channels 15 years back.

As Orphi and Scott infer and state the majority of people in this country  
received the free broadcasts only. Those I know who did have satellite got  
those four/five channels plus others not affiliated with those  
broadcasters and complained about how crap it was.

Now those same broadcasters are trying to take a lower budget (due to the  
current economic situation) and pad it out amongst more channels. The BBC  
used to just have BBC1 and BBC2 plus the radio stations, now it's also got  
BBC3, BBC4, CBeebies, CBBC, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, and the shifting  
multi-channel Red Button. ITV runs to five channels, Channel 4 has five,  
and "Five" has three; and that's not counting regional variations.

Yes some of these were coming into force during the satellite and cable  
pick-up times; but it was the digital switchover that really started to  
spread things thinly for the UK.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 3/8/2010 2:10 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
>>>
>> The US. Why?
>
> I think the situation is slightly different in the UK.
>
> But sure, I'll go with your basic premis. There's a lot of free stuff
> that you used to have to pay for.
>
> (I don't know about you, but where I am, at least 25% of the channels
> have "+1" in their name. Yes, that's right. They rebroadcast the stuff
> again in case you missed it the first time - even though that was in
> 1970 or so...)
>
Actually wish we had some that re-ran stuff. Missed House last week, due 
to some sort of crisis/upgrade to the cable system, and it takes 8 days 
for it to run up on Hulu. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 3/9/2010 1:27 AM, scott wrote:
>> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
>> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
>> illegal satellite unit, to watch them.
>
> Maybe in the US. In the UK we only got a satellite service around 1990,
> and cable TV much later which still is not popular at all. The majority
> of people used terrestrial receivers to get the 4 available channels via
> analogue (they added a 5th, but bandwidth problems meant a lot of people
> couldn't get it properly), and recently ~50 channels via digital.
>
> In the UK, the only channels now that existed before digital TV are the
> ones that came over from Sky, like Sky News, Sky Sports News and CNN and
> the imported Viva channel (can't see anymore on the listings that might
> have existed earlier). All the rest (the majority) were either added as
> additions to the "big 4" analogue channels or created from scratch after
> digital TV came.
>
> The channel list is here:
>
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Channels
>
>
So.. the old joke about going to Europe and having one one station, 
which showed nothing but how the local factory made cheese is true? lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> So.. the old joke about going to Europe and having one one station, which 
> showed nothing but how the local factory made cheese is true? lol

We have a joke that says the more TV channels you have the dumber you are. 
:-)

In the UK it seems that the poorer the area the more likely they are to have 
satellite TV (that's just my observation).

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:38:43 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> So.. the old joke about going to Europe and having one one station,  
>> which showed nothing but how the local factory made cheese is true? lol
>
> We have a joke that says the more TV channels you have the dumber you  
> are. :-)
>
> In the UK it seems that the poorer the area the more likely they are to  
> have satellite TV (that's just my observation).

I think that's when the BBC lost most of the football coverage to Sky and  
certain areas looked as if they'd suffered from an explosion in a  
satellite dish factory.

Can't do without the footie!

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:10:25 -0000, Patrick Elliott  
<sel### [at] npgcablecom> did spake thusly:

> On 3/8/2010 2:10 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
>>>>
>>> The US. Why?
>>
>> I think the situation is slightly different in the UK.
>>
>> But sure, I'll go with your basic premis. There's a lot of free stuff
>> that you used to have to pay for.
>>
>> (I don't know about you, but where I am, at least 25% of the channels
>> have "+1" in their name. Yes, that's right. They rebroadcast the stuff
>> again in case you missed it the first time - even though that was in
>> 1970 or so...)
>>
> Actually wish we had some that re-ran stuff. Missed House last week, due  
> to some sort of crisis/upgrade to the cable system, and it takes 8 days  
> for it to run up on Hulu. lol

The +1 channels are quite useful as broadcasters still seem to be stuck in  
an age you had to watch a programme when it was on and thus schedule  
things to run against each other. I've lost count of the number of times  
I've gone to record something and my box has had to suggest recording it  
on the time-shifted channel to avoid clashes.

For re-run channels pretty much ITV3 and ITV4; Dave runs a lot and if I  
find myself with some spare time I can pretty much guarantee either it or  
Dave Ja Vu (+1) will be showing a old "Top Gear" episode. Classic shows  
though are confined to "Gold" which is subscription only.

There's some good stuff out there, just have to wade though a lot more  
dross to find it though.

I'm surprised it took so long to run "House" though, don't the channels  
offer an online catch-up service?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

scott a écrit :
>> So.. the old joke about going to Europe and having one one station,
>> which showed nothing but how the local factory made cheese is true? lol
> 
> We have a joke that says the more TV channels you have the dumber you
> are. :-)
> 
The Quantity of Quality is constant, the more channels, the less part of
 Quality per channel.


> In the UK it seems that the poorer the area the more likely they are to
> have satellite TV (that's just my observation).

Panem et circenses... Bad foods and entertainments...

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.<br/>
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?<br/>
A: Top-posting.<br/>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Post a reply to this message

On 3/10/2010 2:17 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> I'm surprised it took so long to run "House" though, don't the channels
> offer an online catch-up service?
>
Its something in the contract with the broadcaster or something. It 
"must" be delayed that long.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah, that too. Wasn't 24 FPS chosen because it's the *minimum* frame 
>> rate that yields a believable illusion of motion?

Interesting paper from the BBC about higher frame rates:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp169.shtml

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:34:30 -0000, Patrick Elliott  
<sel### [at] npgcablecom> did spake thusly:

> On 3/10/2010 2:17 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> I'm surprised it took so long to run "House" though, don't the channels
>> offer an online catch-up service?
>>
> Its something in the contract with the broadcaster or something. It  
> "must" be delayed that long.

Hmm I suppose it's run at different times in different areas, I can  
understand the owners not wanting it made available to anyone with an  
internet connection until they've rung all the money out of the standard  
broadcasters.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
                                                          - 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

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

And lo On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:14:23 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> 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)

Used to be a Radio License then a Radio and Television Licence; in reality
it's a license to receive broadcasts and the radio bit's been dropped.

That's kind of like what Orphi was saying about if you have a tuner in
your toaster, it's up to you to prove that you're not receiving broadcasts
if you have the ability to do so. Of course this obviously applied to
computers with tuners in them; and now you don't even need that to watch
them online as the license applies to watching television that has been
broadcast even if you're not watching it via a broadcast medium.

In theory simply owning a computer connected to the internet could mean
you require a license; in practice it can be a hassle to prove.

> 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.

Ah but you have a choice of cable companies, we don't. Competition should
keep the prices down...lol

> 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.

And you get the joy of watching adverts too.

> 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).

I drive past a station on the way to work and watched it go from 110.9p to  
114.9p over a couple of weeks.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 11-3-2010 19:19, Warp wrote:
> 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.

We used to have a license system here too.
At some point in time they realized that the number of people that did 
not watch TV or listen to radio was getting very small. Keeping the 
whole system with separate TV and radio licenses and a special 'police' 
force that could track down violators was not very cost effective. A 
cheaper, but perhaps not as fair, system was just let everybody pay. 
That would result in the Finnish system.
But... Effectively this becomes a sort of tax in this way. Hence some 
bright politicians made sure the system was indeed converted to a system 
paid from tax money in stead of from licences (while slightly increasing 
tax).

>   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.

Tax also solves that.

Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not 
thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to 
support the obviously wrong solution?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:34:21 +0100, andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not  
> thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to  
> support the obviously wrong solution?

In Sweden we have a system very similar to that in Finland. The idea of  
moving to a tax-based system has been discussed (and so far rejected) many  
times. It is an ideological issue; the media is supposed to be independent  
 from the state.

The latest thing they (i.e. the ones collecting the fees) are trying to  
push through here is that they want people to have to pay the fee for  
computers as well as TVs, as shows are increasingly being offered online.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >   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.

> Tax also solves that.

  Polls suggest that the majority of people would want either the current
system to remain, or for the "media tax" to be taken directly from tax funds
instead of this proposed fixed-fee-per-household. Taking the money from the
tax funds would, indeed, solve the problem of the fee being unfair to poor
people and those living alone because it would be directly proportional to
people's income.

  The government, so far, is not hearing the people on this. (Tells
something about democracy, doesn't it?)

> Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not 
> thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to 
> support the obviously wrong solution?

  There has been some argument that taking the money from tax funds would
increase governmental control over the public media, or something like that.
Most people (including myself) don't quite understand what this means, as
the TV channels currently funded by the current payment system is already
run by the government. I suppose there's some complex politics behind all
this mess.

  IMO it's not so important who runs those TV channels (because it's not
like there weren't privately-owned alternatives; there are quite many of
them). It's more important for this "media tax" to be fair.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> In Sweden we have a system very similar to that in Finland. The idea of  
> moving to a tax-based system has been discussed (and so far rejected) many  
> times. It is an ideological issue; the media is supposed to be independent  
>  from the state.

  The media fee is used to fund *one* broadcast company (YLE), not all of
them. Even if that one company would be run 100% by the government, it's not
like there wouldn't be plenty of independent alternatives.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:31:41 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>> 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)
> 
> Used to be a Radio License then a Radio and Television Licence; in
> reality it's a license to receive broadcasts and the radio bit's been
> dropped.
> 
> That's kind of like what Orphi was saying about if you have a tuner in
> your toaster, it's up to you to prove that you're not receiving
> broadcasts if you have the ability to do so. Of course this obviously
> applied to computers with tuners in them; and now you don't even need
> that to watch them online as the license applies to watching television
> that has been broadcast even if you're not watching it via a broadcast
> medium.
> 
> In theory simply owning a computer connected to the internet could mean
> you require a license; in practice it can be a hassle to prove.

Yep - and it is difficult to prove that it's being used that way, unless 
of course you start tracking IP address assignments, which starts to get 
into privacy issues.

>> 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.
> 
> Ah but you have a choice of cable companies, we don't. Competition
> should keep the prices down...lol

And yet it doesn't.  Greed keeps prices up, and causes them to increase.

>> 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.
> 
> And you get the joy of watching adverts too.

Yep.  Well, unless we record and skip them, which is what we do.

>> 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).
> 
> I drive past a station on the way to work and watched it go from 110.9p
> to 114.9p over a couple of weeks.

Yeah, I pulled the pricing for the UK from a UK site that tracks petrol 
prices.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12-3-2010 15:42, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>   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.
> 
>> Tax also solves that.
> 
>   Polls suggest that the majority of people would want either the current
> system to remain, or for the "media tax" to be taken directly from tax funds
> instead of this proposed fixed-fee-per-household. Taking the money from the
> tax funds would, indeed, solve the problem of the fee being unfair to poor
> people and those living alone because it would be directly proportional to
> people's income.
> 
>   The government, so far, is not hearing the people on this. (Tells
> something about democracy, doesn't it?)
> 
>> Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not 
>> thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to 
>> support the obviously wrong solution?
> 
>   There has been some argument that taking the money from tax funds would
> increase governmental control over the public media, or something like that.

Here and in other countries it didn't happen, so why would Finland be 
different? Judges are paid by tax money also, are they also under 
government control?

> Most people (including myself) don't quite understand what this means, as
> the TV channels currently funded by the current payment system is already
> run by the government. I suppose there's some complex politics behind all
> this mess.

My first suggestion would be that there is some *simple* politics behind 
it. Some group is paying people to argue against it. Likely suspects: 
the boss(es) of the current TV company (interest: freedom to give 
yourself a 'market conform' salary), those of the commercial competitors 
(interest: keep the station in constant debate), foreign IP holders 
(keep the playing field simple), political parties (either afraid of 
what a good journalist may uncover or just believing in their own 
rhetoric), etc.).

>   IMO it's not so important who runs those TV channels (because it's not
> like there weren't privately-owned alternatives; there are quite many of
> them). It's more important for this "media tax" to be fair.

Content can be important. The major functions of an independent state 
funded channels are:
- broadcast statewise important content because you don't want somebody 
to make money from the e.g. the funeral of a king/queen/president. You 
also may want to make sure these things will always be broadcasted for 
free. Other important things in this category may even include important 
sport events. (our most important sport event (the 11 cities skating 
tour) takes place irregularly with less than a week time for 
preparation. If you give that to one or every commercial station you can 
not make sure the whole 200km tour is covered. Nor do you want that on a 
pay channel.)
- make programs for/about minorities
- programs that very few people watch but are considered important 
nevertheless, like plays/opera.
- programs that are to costly for a commercial company (best known 
example: Attenborough)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:44:33 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> In Sweden we have a system very similar to that in Finland. The idea of
>> moving to a tax-based system has been discussed (and so far rejected)  
>> many
>> times. It is an ideological issue; the media is supposed to be  
>> independent
>>  from the state.
>
>   The media fee is used to fund *one* broadcast company (YLE), not all of
> them. Even if that one company would be run 100% by the government, it's  
> not like there wouldn't be plenty of independent alternatives.

We prefer to have at least one alternative that is also independent from  
commercial interests.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On 03/11/10 11:00, 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?

	Sure. I thought that was normal. They do have premium channels that
cost more that don't show commercials.

-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/11/10 10:14, 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.

http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Commflagging

	I don't think it works well, though.

-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.

Post a reply to this message