Re: Beginners Guide

[Struan Donald]

* at 21/04 10:14 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, you wrote:
> 
> > I read it as not wanting to fund the various commercial entities one
> > ends up funding in order to actual get a digital box. The idea of
> > putting any more money in the Murdoch empires coffers just for the
> > sake of getting News 24 and BBC Choice certainly doesn't appeal.
> 
> ahh ..  yes .. that would be another interpretation ...
> but, again,  it certainly used to be the case and AFAIK it still is that
> you can get ( it might be 3 quid or something $ trivial to cover the cost
> of hte card) a BBC only card that is free on production of your TV
> licence. I know Murdoch et al were not very keen on the idea and try and
> tell you it 'cant be done' etc but ISTR the DTI telling em to just shut
> up and do it.

and almost as if in answer to this i noticed a great many ads for
digital tv wjile vegging in front of smtv on saturday that made much
of the fact that you bought it and itv2 was free, free, free! as it
also showed tvs with news24 etc i imagine all your favourite bbc
digital channels are also free.

struan

Re: Beginners Guide

[Robin Szemeti]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, you wrote:

> I read it as not wanting to fund the various commercial entities one
> ends up funding in order to actual get a digital box. The idea of
> putting any more money in the Murdoch empires coffers just for the
> sake of getting News 24 and BBC Choice certainly doesn't appeal.

ahh ..  yes .. that would be another interpretation ...
but, again,  it certainly used to be the case and AFAIK it still is that
you can get ( it might be 3 quid or something $ trivial to cover the cost
of hte card) a BBC only card that is free on production of your TV
licence. I know Murdoch et al were not very keen on the idea and try and
tell you it 'cant be done' etc but ISTR the DTI telling em to just shut
up and do it.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

[Greg McCarroll]

* David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> ObLon.pm:  A buffy DW crossover would be cool...  In fact:
> http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/dwxst.htm
> 

Buffy as the Doctor's assistant, now that would rock. Picture it
some shambling monster is coming down the corridor, Buffy and the
Doctor are stopped a large metal door.

D> One second my dear, i'll have this open.
*The doctor hunts around in many pockets for his sonic screwdriver,
 taking out bits of string and packets of jellybabies as he does.*
B> Hurry Doctor!
D> Yes yes, one moment here it is!
M> g, *shamble*
*the doctor starts to examine the lock and mutters all the time*
B> Hurry!
D> Please quiet, this is very delicate, hmmm ... aha i think i know
*Buffy loses it, pulls down the doctor aside, kicks the door down and goes to run
 with the doctor out, but suddenly stops, turns around and proceeds to
 beat up the shambling mound*
D> What? What?
B> Don't mention it, you can make it up to me by taking me
   shopping - there is simply oodles of closet space to fill
   in the tardis.



-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

[David H. Adler]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 10:44:00AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:06:10 -0400, David H. Adler wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 07:31:59PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > > 
> > > If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan,
> > > is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate?
> > 
> > Nah.  He's only up to his 8th incarnation.  he's got 13.  Also,
> > depending on how you look at things, he may be a special case.
> 
> I remember an episode where Peter Davidson was going to "donate" (ie.
> under pressure) his remaining generations to a bunch of aliens who
> would all have died otherwise. Surely this can be stretched so that
> other timelords can be persuaded to donate their generations to the
> Doctor, in order to keep the series going when the actors get fed
> up/sacked/die.

That would have been Mawdryn Undead.  Yes, this does imply that it is
theoretically possible, but... there is also the implication that just a
lot of generic engergy is what was needed, as a sudden influx of such is
what kept the doctor from having to give up his regenerations.
Actually, now that I think of it, the aliens were just regenerating over
and over and over again (with almost immediate deterioration), due to
their having nicked a piece of time lord technology that they had
intended to use to prolong their lives.  At the point we meet them, they
want the Doctor's regeneration energies just so they can finally *die*.
So the implication is far from clear.
 
> > [note: this does not take the comic relief special as canon...]
> 
> With my scheme, that doesn't matter, unless you want any of those
> actors to play the Doctor in the future and you believe that he can't
> be incarnated the same way twice. :-)

Regeneration theory is somewhat confused, if you take everything we know
about it into consideration.  Surely Romana doesn't use up a bunch of
regens while trying on bodies at the beginning of Destiny of the
Daleks... which raises the idea that regeneration and bodily
transformation are not the same thing.  Which also leads us to think
that the doctor may actually be only on his 7th regen, as he does not
actually die at the end of The War Games, but is sentenced to exile in a
different body.

ObLon.pm:  A buffy DW crossover would be cool...  In fact:
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/dwxst.htm

dha

-- 
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
"What is this Japanese preoccupation with the name Ken???" - Tom Servo

Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

[pmh]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:06:10 -0400, David H. Adler wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 07:31:59PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > * David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > 
> > > Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it...
> > > 
> > 
> > If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan,
> > is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate?
> 
> Nah.  He's only up to his 8th incarnation.  he's got 13.  Also,
> depending on how you look at things, he may be a special case.

I remember an episode where Peter Davidson was going to "donate" (ie. under pressure) 
his remaining generations to a bunch of aliens who would all have died otherwise. 
Surely this can be stretched so that other timelords can be persuaded to donate their 
generations to the Doctor, in order to keep the series going when the actors get fed 
up/sacked/die.


> [note: this does not take the comic relief special as canon...]

With my scheme, that doesn't matter, unless you want any of those actors to play the 
Doctor in the future and you believe that he can't be incarnated the same way twice. 
:-)

-- 
Peter Haworth   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"There's even a page about it on the web; I don't know the address, you
 know, the slash-slash thing, but I'm sure our techie viewers out there can
 find out...  Ha, ha..."-- quote from PBS pledge break

Re: Beginners Guide

[Struan Donald]

* at 19/04 22:59 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, you wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Matthew Byng-Maddick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > > Personally I don't mind funding the beeb, as long as the quality of
> > > > content they produce is high. I do object to funding random corporations
> > > > whose interests are to their shareholders...
> > > >
> 
> well don't you worry yourself unduly .. you don't fund then in any way 
> and up to this point in time at least the only shareholder is the BBC in
> all thes 'random corpoartations' .. basically its a dadge to allow the
> BBC to compete against the commercial stations. the 'random corporations'
> eg BBC resources limited recieve no licence payers money other than for
> services they sell to the BBC eg studio costs for a specific programme.
> that way they cant be accused of using public funded resources to compete
> against other production companies when bidding for work. in other words
>  its just another accounting trick :)

I read it as not wanting to fund the various commercial entities one
ends up funding in order to actual get a digital box. The idea of
putting any more money in the Murdoch empires coffers just for the
sake of getting News 24 and BBC Choice certainly doesn't appeal.

struan (who always seem to end up paying the licence despite watching
less tv than his flatmates)

Re: Beginners Guide

[Robin Szemeti]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, you wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Matthew Byng-Maddick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Personally I don't mind funding the beeb, as long as the quality of
> > > content they produce is high. I do object to funding random corporations
> > > whose interests are to their shareholders...
> > >

well don't you worry yourself unduly .. you don't fund then in any way 
and up to this point in time at least the only shareholder is the BBC in
all thes 'random corpoartations' .. basically its a dadge to allow the
BBC to compete against the commercial stations. the 'random corporations'
eg BBC resources limited recieve no licence payers money other than for
services they sell to the BBC eg studio costs for a specific programme.
that way they cant be accused of using public funded resources to compete
against other production companies when bidding for work. in other words
 its just another accounting trick :)

> > Sorry, I don't mind funding the BBC either, I think I get very good value
> > for money at the moment, it's worth it for Radio4 alone. What I object to is
> > paying twice, which is what would be happening if I paid a monthly
> > subscription to see the digital BBC channels that nobody actually wants[1].

umm .. since a) the 'extra' digital channels aren't funded out of the
licence fee and b) you aren't paying the extra subscription, then I dont
see your problem. the extra channels digital channels that you have to
pay a seperate subscription for are self funding and don't get a sub out
of the normal licence fee. think of them in exactly the same terms as say
Sky.

   
> Hear, Hear! I don't mind funding the BBC either, but I won't pay for a 
> TV license when I don't have a TV:
> 
>   
>   **BRING BACK THE RADIO LICENSE**
>   
> 
> > I am annoyed that I am now paying for this digital stuff indirectly, and I
> > can't watch it. 

ummm .. so you don't have a TV license and you are 'paying for this
digital stuff indirectly' .. how so? .. are you bunging fivers in an
envelope and sending them off or something? ... all the monies that fund
the BBC come from licence fees collection (apart from a small amount
provided by govenrment to cover things such as the shipping forecast, and
being ready to tell you to take cover if a war breaks out) everything
else comes out of licence fees so if you aren't paying one you aren't
funding anything. Im sure if you want to apy a 'radio licence' they'll
let you .. just stuff some fivers in an envelope :)

> I'm going to go to the BBC website and gripe some more about
> > this :-)
> 
> Of course when Demon Internet finally sort out my Premier Connect Plus
> subscription I'll go to the BBC website and listen to Radio4 for free
> and feel even more guilty.

haa .. right .. beat this. I have Surftime Anytime and  Demon Premier
thing. .. this quarter my bill says 
 1436 hours .. 0.00 pence 

I reckon 1436 hours in a quarter is pretty good going .. it beats my 750
hours or so last quarter :)

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

Re: Beginners Guide

[Chris Benson]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Byng-Maddick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Personally I don't mind funding the beeb, as long as the quality of
> > content they produce is high. I do object to funding random corporations
> > whose interests are to their shareholders...
> >
> Sorry, I don't mind funding the BBC either, I think I get very good value
> for money at the moment, it's worth it for Radio4 alone. What I object to is
> paying twice, which is what would be happening if I paid a monthly
> subscription to see the digital BBC channels that nobody actually wants[1].

Hear, Hear! I don't mind funding the BBC either, but I won't pay for a 
TV license when I don't have a TV:


**BRING BACK THE RADIO LICENSE**


> I am annoyed that I am now paying for this digital stuff indirectly, and I
> can't watch it. I'm going to go to the BBC website and gripe some more about
> this :-)

Of course when Demon Internet finally sort out my Premier Connect Plus
subscription I'll go to the BBC website and listen to Radio4 for free
and feel even more guilty.

Actually I'll probably listen to www.todayfm.ie: 17:00-19:00 "Last Word"
with Eamon Dunfy? giving politicans a hard time, then at 19:00 to 22:00
"Pet Sounds" with Neil Dunn and 22:00 onwards "Into the Night".  (or on
Sunday nights "Dad Rock" - sounds of the '70s :-)

-- 
Chris Benson -- waiting for the next round of letters accusing me of 
criminality because I don't have a TV license.   If anyone else is 
interested the directors of Envision Licensing Limited t/a TVLA are:
Nigel Howlett, Ms Kim Lambert, Jonathan Evans.  John Jack is the 
Chairman.  The registered address is Hardwick House, Prospect Place,
Swindon, SN1 3LJ.

I was planning to ask them all to prove that they were not paedophiles,
but the SO suggests this may be too outrageous and therefore ignored,
so I think I will instead offer them a buffet from:
/(paedophilia|(income |corporation )?tax fraud|software theft|patent infringement)/

This suggests to me that I should report the FAST to BSA for software 
license fraud and vice versa!  Wow, do you think I should patent that
idea??  Or maybe I should stop drinking.

Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

[David H. Adler]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 07:31:59PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > 
> > Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it...
> > 
> 
> If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan,
> is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate?

Nah.  He's only up to his 8th incarnation.  he's got 13.  Also,
depending on how you look at things, he may be a special case.

[note: this does not take the comic relief special as canon...]

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
Well (s)he is only a type of deer after all so its particularly
spectacular to have learnt English from only 'A Stranger in a Strange
Land' and 'A Clockwork Orange'  - Jonathan Stowe in c.l.p.misc
(It was even better *in* context... :-)

Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

[Greg McCarroll]

* David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it...
> 

If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan,
is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate?

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Beginners Guide

[Roger Burton West]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:

>What I object to is
>paying twice, which is what would be happening if I paid a monthly
>subscription to see the digital BBC channels that nobody actually wants[1].
>[1]troll

Don't worry, I didn't get the job with them to work on the interactive
digital crap :-)

Roger

Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

[David H. Adler]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:42:48PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> 
> I'd be happy to pay a £400/year voluntary sub for a BBC with no
> adverts during programs. 

...

> But for that they're going to have to stop producing so much crap. I
> want more stuff of the quality of Clocking Off and Walk On By, and
> less of the vets in kitchens making your home look horrible cheap
> shit. 

Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it...

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
My theory is that his ignorance clouded his poor judgement.
- Alice, in Dilbert's office

Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

[Piers Cawley]

Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it likely that the licence fee will go. It would be a popular
> move with the Great Unwashed. ( who seem happy to spend 400 quid a year
> on a Sky subscription ), so I can see the BBC being released from its
> licence fee. This would have huge knock-ons in the commercial TV world.
> The advertising cake is only so big, if the BBC suddenly started taking
> adverts then I doubt many of the commercial stations would appreciate the
> 50% drop in revenue. Assuming the BBC could decure 50% of the current TV
> advertising cake they would be significantly better off than they are
> now. 
> 
> Personally I would rather pay a licence fee and have a (largely)
> independent public service broadcaster than yet another commercial
> station that can't say various things in case it upsets a major
> advertiser. YMMV

I'd be happy to pay a £400/year voluntary sub for a BBC with no
adverts during programs. I'd probably be prepared to put up with
adverts between programs a la FilmFour. But if they ever start running
ads on Radio 4 then they can whistle for my money.

But for that they're going to have to stop producing so much crap. I
want more stuff of the quality of Clocking Off and Walk On By, and
less of the vets in kitchens making your home look horrible cheap
shit. 

-- 
Piers, who can't remember the last time he watched anything on ITV.

Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

[Robin Szemeti]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, you wrote:
> Neil Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Don't be suprised if by then the abolishment of the licence fee hasn't been
> > announced and that the BBC hasn't announced subscription charges for it's
> > services. Better that than the Beeb starts carrying ads.
> 
> Politically the BBC has been lucky with its licence fee.  There was
> some discussion about abolishing it in the early 1980s under Thatcher
> but its been off the political agenda since then.  The election of
> Labour must have been a relief for them.

umm ... thats not quite true. The BBC has had quite a hard time of it
over the last  few years. In order to have its charter renewed in 199X it
had to undergo a series of reforms that basically tore the guts out of
it.  The sale of it transmision facilities and the moving of all its
'hardware' to BBC Resources Ltd are all as a result of that process. Over
the last 10 years its been a constant battle to try and maintain the
service. Every licence fee review (and they happen more often than
you might think) seems to involve more reforms being demanded from
government in order to approve this years fees.  

The licence fee has been subject to modest rises basically either in line
or slightly behind inflation. In an arena where the cost of broadcasting
is actually increasing at a rate somewhat above inflation this leaves an
ever increasing gap in the finances. This, coupled with a legal
requirement to have 25% of its programmes produced by external companies
(who typically cost 20% more than producing the same programme in house)
place further stresses on the budgets, leaving little money for in house
productions.

I think it likely that the licence fee will go. It would be a popular
move with the Great Unwashed. ( who seem happy to spend 400 quid a year
on a Sky subscription ), so I can see the BBC being released from its
licence fee. This would have huge knock-ons in the commercial TV world.
The advertising cake is only so big, if the BBC suddenly started taking
adverts then I doubt many of the commercial stations would appreciate the
50% drop in revenue. Assuming the BBC could decure 50% of the current TV
advertising cake they would be significantly better off than they are
now. 

Personally I would rather pay a licence fee and have a (largely)
independent public service broadcaster than yet another commercial
station that can't say various things in case it upsets a major
advertiser. YMMV

Several areas of the BBC have been split off into 'wholly owned, self
financing subsidiaries' that can compete against other players in the
market. this is not hugely popular with other players in the market, but
you can expect to see it start to flex its muscles a little more over the
next few years.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

[Steve Mynott]

Neil Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Don't be suprised if by then the abolishment of the licence fee hasn't been
> announced and that the BBC hasn't announced subscription charges for it's
> services. Better that than the Beeb starts carrying ads.

Politically the BBC has been lucky with its licence fee.  There was
some discussion about abolishing it in the early 1980s under Thatcher
but its been off the political agenda since then.  The election of
Labour must have been a relief for them.

As for the "Beeb" carrying ads, well it has done this for several
years on its web site which was setup with ICL

http://www.beeb.net/

(this is the "Beeb" in the sense of "beeb Ventures Ltd", a subsidiary
of BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC.)  Of course few
outside the corporation itself realise that "Beeb" is actually the
brandname of a profit making company with online shopping.

The BBC proper of course actually carries adverts on television for
its own commercial products like "Radio Times" and even political
adverts supporting the way its financed ("its the unique way .. blah
blah").  

But it doesn't carry adverts for anyone else.
 
> The BBC are definitely working towards the licence fee being withdrawn at some
> point by some government (hence all the curfuffle over ads on bbc.com), so
> alternative forms of financing will need to be sort.

The BBC is pragmatic enough to realise that long-term the licence fee
will probably go.

It's the how and when that are interesting!

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

mary had a little key - she kept it in escrow, and every thing that
mary said, the feds were sure to know.  -- sam simpson

Re: Beginners Guide

[Neil Ford]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 12:33:59PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 12:06:02PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> 
> > hard to say [BBC channels] are normally given free if you subscribe to one
> > premier channel
> 
> If your telly has a built-in digital decoder, then the BBC channels will
> be free, and you won't need cable or a satellite dish.
> 
> IANABBCE and IANADTVE
 
 but possibly not by the time the whole UK has gone digital 

Don't be suprised if by then the abolishment of the licence fee hasn't been
announced and that the BBC hasn't announced subscription charges for it's
services. Better that than the Beeb starts carrying ads.

The BBC are definitely working towards the licence fee being withdrawn at some
point by some government (hence all the curfuffle over ads on bbc.com), so
alternative forms of financing will need to be sort.

The above is of course conjecture on my part (I'm not Greg Dyke) but is based
on knowledge gained during the BBC's recent acquisition of certain assets of
a certain dot.com. :-)

How this would work with radio I have no idea.

Neil.

Re: Beginners Guide

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 12:06:02PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:

> hard to say [BBC channels] are normally given free if you subscribe to one
> premier channel

If your telly has a built-in digital decoder, then the BBC channels will
be free, and you won't need cable or a satellite dish.

IANABBCE and IANADTVE

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

   Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our latest and greatest
 operating system which we couldn't be arsed to complete

** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important **

Re: Beginners Guide

[Greg McCarroll]

* Robert Shiels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> From: "Greg McCarroll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > > But if you get a digital TV/receiver, surely BBC is available for free
> > > without any subscriptions. If this is not the case then I think it's
> > > criminal.
> > >
> >
> > it is
> >
> I can read that two ways, do you mean it is free, or it is criminal.

sorry,

 it is free

> if I'm being dim. I think you mean that it is free. So I need a digital
> receiver, like those ondigital things, and that's all. Wonder how much they
> cost.

hard to say they are normally given free if you subscribe to one
premier channel

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Beginners Guide

[Robert Shiels]

From: "Greg McCarroll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > But if you get a digital TV/receiver, surely BBC is available for free
> > without any subscriptions. If this is not the case then I think it's
> > criminal.
> >
>
> it is
>
I can read that two ways, do you mean it is free, or it is criminal. Sorry
if I'm being dim. I think you mean that it is free. So I need a digital
receiver, like those ondigital things, and that's all. Wonder how much they
cost.

/Robert

Re: Beginners Guide

[Robert Shiels]

- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Byng-Maddick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Personally I don't mind funding the beeb, as long as the quality of
> content they produce is high. I do object to funding random corporations
> whose interests are to their shareholders...
>
Sorry, I don't mind funding the BBC either, I think I get very good value
for money at the moment, it's worth it for Radio4 alone. What I object to is
paying twice, which is what would be happening if I paid a monthly
subscription to see the digital BBC channels that nobody actually wants[1].
I am annoyed that I am now paying for this digital stuff indirectly, and I
can't watch it. I'm going to go to the BBC website and gripe some more about
this :-)

/Robert

[1]troll

Re: Beginners Guide

[Greg McCarroll]

* Robert Shiels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> Hmm. I too am pissed off about this digital stuff, as the quality is worse
> than analogue TV. My measure of quality is uninterrupted viewing. I have yet
> to watch any digital TV where at some point the picture didn't pixelate or
> completely blank for a few seconds. I have an excellent Sony 100Hz TV, and
> cannot fault the picture. Why are we being forced down this digital route?
> Money I expect.

digital tv takes less bandwidth 

> 
> But if you get a digital TV/receiver, surely BBC is available for free
> without any subscriptions. If this is not the case then I think it's
> criminal.
> 

it is

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Beginners Guide

[Matthew Byng-Maddick]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Robert Shiels wrote:
> Hmm. I too am pissed off about this digital stuff, as the quality is worse
> than analogue TV. My measure of quality is uninterrupted viewing. I have yet
> to watch any digital TV where at some point the picture didn't pixelate or
> completely blank for a few seconds. I have an excellent Sony 100Hz TV, and
> cannot fault the picture. Why are we being forced down this digital route?
> Money I expect.

Why else? Basically, it's a bit like the G3 phones, although we haven't
heard so much about the investment phase. Some companies poured huge
amounts of money into the research to do digital streaming (and various
forms of compression[1]. Now they want their investment back, but noone
will buy DigitalTV [2][3] unless they have no alternative. So they've
asked the government to make sure that there is no alternative.

[1] Of course compression/error-correcting pick one, hence the pixellation
etc.
[2] Whatever standard
[3] We aren't the US, and they misread the market. A large number of
British people are quite happy with the small number of channels,
because they appreciate that larger number of channels just means that
the good stuff is spread even more thinly.

> But if you get a digital TV/receiver, surely BBC is available for free
> without any subscriptions. If this is not the case then I think it's
> criminal.

Why? The digital TV is a one-off cost. The license is on-going. The
revenue from the digital TV/reciever doesn't go to the beeb.

Personally I don't mind funding the beeb, as long as the quality of
content they produce is high. I do object to funding random corporations
whose interests are to their shareholders...

> /Robert
> [thinking maybe he should have taken this to (void)]

No, it's "on-topic" for london.pm. :)

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick   Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
Only  Irish  coffee  provides in  a single  glass all  four essential food
groups -- alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. -- Alex Levine

Re: Beginners Guide

[Dominic Mitchell]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 10:29:09AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:
> From: "Dominic Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Dunno, but I sure hope the digital packages get a bit better than the
> > current offerings otherwise I'll just switch off the telly and not turn
> > it on again...
> > -Dom (resents paying once for the license fee and again for the
> subscription)
> 
> Hmm. I too am pissed off about this digital stuff, as the quality is worse
> than analogue TV. My measure of quality is uninterrupted viewing. I have yet
> to watch any digital TV where at some point the picture didn't pixelate or
> completely blank for a few seconds. I have an excellent Sony 100Hz TV, and
> cannot fault the picture. Why are we being forced down this digital route?
> Money I expect.
> 
> But if you get a digital TV/receiver, surely BBC is available for free
> without any subscriptions. If this is not the case then I think it's
> criminal.

All the offers I've looked at so far have needed one to subscribe to at
least one "primary channel" as well as the free stuff.  Although maybe I
haven't looked at the fine print...

-Dom

Re: Beginners Guide

[Robert Shiels]

From: "Dominic Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:49:09PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > And there was me thinking that Chris was going to say that he doesn't
have
> > a TV either. But he didn't. I don't have a TV. But I'm currently camped
out
> > in my parents house, and they have 2. But I learn that they will both be
> > obsolete in 5 years when we all the analogue TV transmitters are turned
off.
> > Is that relevant? :-)
> Dunno, but I sure hope the digital packages get a bit better than the
> current offerings otherwise I'll just switch off the telly and not turn
> it on again...
> -Dom (resents paying once for the license fee and again for the
subscription)

Hmm. I too am pissed off about this digital stuff, as the quality is worse
than analogue TV. My measure of quality is uninterrupted viewing. I have yet
to watch any digital TV where at some point the picture didn't pixelate or
completely blank for a few seconds. I have an excellent Sony 100Hz TV, and
cannot fault the picture. Why are we being forced down this digital route?
Money I expect.

But if you get a digital TV/receiver, surely BBC is available for free
without any subscriptions. If this is not the case then I think it's
criminal.

/Robert
[thinking maybe he should have taken this to (void)]

Re: Beginners Guide

[Dominic Mitchell]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:49:09PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> And there was me thinking that Chris was going to say that he doesn't have
> a TV either. But he didn't. I don't have a TV. But I'm currently camped out
> in my parents house, and they have 2. But I learn that they will both be
> obsolete in 5 years when we all the analogue TV transmitters are turned off.
> Is that relevant? :-)

Dunno, but I sure hope the digital packages get a bit better than the
current offerings otherwise I'll just switch off the telly and not turn
it on again...

-Dom (resents paying once for the license fee and again for the subscription)

Re: Beginners Guide

[Nicholas Clark]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 08:33:29PM +0100, Chris Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:52:57AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > * Robin Szemeti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > technical meeting then you can either video it or watch the repeat on 00:35
> > > > on Friday night/Saturday morning.
> > > 
> > > umm .. would now be a good time to point out I don't have a television?

> I assume everyone (that's interested) knows about 'Ask Buffy' at
>    
> By Buffy Overflow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 

And there was me thinking that Chris was going to say that he doesn't have
a TV either. But he didn't. I don't have a TV. But I'm currently camped out
in my parents house, and they have 2. But I learn that they will both be
obsolete in 5 years when we all the analogue TV transmitters are turned off.
Is that relevant? :-)

Nicholas Clark

Re: Beginners Guide

[Chris Benson]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:52:57AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * Robin Szemeti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > technical meeting then you can either video it or watch the repeat on 00:35
> > > on Friday night/Saturday morning.
> > 
> > umm .. would now be a good time to point out I don't have a television?
> > 
> 
> scripts are available on the web - there is no excuse for not 
> establishing a basic knowledge of BtVS!
> 
> now theres a good idea for our next London.pm social meeting 

I assume everyone (that's interested) knows about 'Ask Buffy' at
 
By Buffy Overflow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 

-- 
Chris Benson

Re: Beginners Guide

[Greg McCarroll]

* Robin Szemeti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > technical meeting then you can either video it or watch the repeat on 00:35
> > on Friday night/Saturday morning.
> 
> umm .. would now be a good time to point out I don't have a television?
> 

scripts are available on the web - there is no excuse for not 
establishing a basic knowledge of BtVS!

now theres a good idea for our next London.pm social meeting 

London.pm presents Buffy the Vampire Slayer --- The Theatre experience!

now if we only had some people who could simulate the bazooka explosion
;-)

Greg

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Beginners Guide

[Dean]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:41:46AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> > I'm painfully aware that not everyone on this list has the same amount of
> > experience and knowledge and that therefore some discussions may well go
> > over the head of some of the newbies. It's therefore nice to be able to find
> > ways to help out beginners.

I thought this was going to lead to something completly different... Silly
me ;)
 
> Any chance you could transcribe the important bits for us. (if as I
> suspect, the important bits are umm .. errr .. 'soft and fleshy'  please
> attach jpegs)

You asked for this ;)

http://www.psyche.kn-bremen.de/

And its more upto date than BBC2!

Dean
-- 
Profanity is the one language all programmers understand
   --- Anon

Re: Beginners Guide

[Robin Szemeti]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, you wrote:
> I'm painfully aware that not everyone on this list has the same amount of
> experience and knowledge and that therefore some discussions may well go
> over the head of some of the newbies. It's therefore nice to be able to find
> ways to help out beginners.

uh huh ...

> For that reason, I'm happy to point out the the BBC are starting to repeat
> Buffy the Vampire Slayer right from the start. The very first episode will
> be shown this coming Thursday on BBC2 at 18:45. If you're going to be at the
> technical meeting then you can either video it or watch the repeat on 00:35
> on Friday night/Saturday morning.

umm .. would now be a good time to point out I don't have a television?

> After this run, we'll be able to assume that everyone has at least a
> rudimentary grasp of the basics which should make discussions much easier.

Any chance you could transcribe the important bits for us. (if as I
suspect, the important bits are umm .. errr .. 'soft and fleshy'  please
attach jpegs)

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!