🚀 go-pugleaf

On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
> There’s an interesting report just published here
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
>
> It’s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly reproduce
> here.
>



Anything that has "They were more likely to identify as female" says a
lot about whoever wrote it.

Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
>
>> There’s an interesting report just published here
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
>>
>> It’s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly reproduce
>> here.
>
> What does it say? Why isn't there an abstract?
>

Follow the link and you will find out……

On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
> There’s an interesting report just published here
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
>
> It’s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly reproduce
> here.
>
Well I haven't read all 201 pages only the Introduction and Key Findings, and skimmed the reset, but am not at all impressed.  It's sloppily put together, there is a glossary/list of acronyms near the start which is partly but not properly in alphabetical order: what a cock-up!   There is mention of Freesat here and there, but no proper consideration of where satellite broadcasting fits in, the whole report is really just a comparison of terrestrial broadcasting and Internet channels.  And they seem to think that those of us relying mostly on terrestrial broadcasting are luddites or dinosaurs in the twilight of our lives.

Nowhere could I find any coverage of one of the most off-putting features of Internet channels (iPlayer, My5, YouTube, etc.) - the user interface on all devices that I know about is simply awful: very laggy pause button, very limited ability to rewind or fast-forward, and usually no ability to skip adverts.

We use these Internet channels when necessary, but normally rely on recording the programmes we want to watch on our own digital video recorder and then play them back at a time suitable for us. The play-back allows us to fast-forward through ads and trailers, to pause instantly, and rewind or space forwards at any speed between 2x and 64x if we want to.  All this seems much better than any Internet-based system.  It may be that the software will improve and latency may go down gradually, but pausing an Internet stream is bound to be less satisfactory as it essentially involves sending a command to a remote server.


--
Clive Page

Clive Page wrote:

> the whole report is really just a comparison of terrestrial broadcasting
> and Internet channels.  And they seem to think that those of us relying
> mostly on terrestrial broadcasting are luddites or dinosaurs in the
> twilight of our lives.

There might be a modicum of truth in that, maybe more-so when looking
from the other end of the telescope?

I don't watch much streaming TV, but when I do (e.g. royal occasions)
it's been to see how good the 4K/UHD quality is, and how well the
service holds-up ... which hasn't been brilliant, the weakness is
outside my house because from satellite I used to be able to watch the
4K/UHD demo channels perfectly well.

Seems like anything beyond 1080 is losing out anyway, they didn't bother
with Euro24, I think.

On 08/11/2024 18:59, Max Demian wrote:
> On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
>
>> There’s an interesting report just published here
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
>>
>> It’s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly
>> reproduce
>> here.
>
> What does it say? Why isn't there an abstract?
>

<quote>

Audience Analysis
In 2023, 87% of UK households had an internet-enabled primary TV and
approximately 18% used the internet exclusively as their primary way to
watch
television. 17% of UK households were dependent on digital terrestrial
television for their TV viewing.

● Homes that were dependent on digital terrestrial television included
13,000
homes in areas without fixed-line broadband, 1.7 million homes without
broadband access for reasons of affordability or choice, 2.2 million
homes with
broadband where the TV is unconnected to the internet and 0.7 million
with an
internet-connected TV whose viewing is more than 80% linear.

● In 2023, 90% of those without a broadband connection were aged over
55. They
were more likely to identify as female and to live on their own. 80% of
those with
no broadband connection were within the C2DE socioeconomic bands. They
were also more likely to live in the north of England, Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland and have a disability.

● In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services. Internet
delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of households at 71%
of homes. A small minority – 5% of homes – will remain wholly reliant on
digital terrestrial television broadcast."

</quote>

On the other hand the technology of television is too confusing for
some, and looks like telephone landlines is heading the same way,
equally as unfathomable as DAB and mobile phones for the same people.

Knobs, not buttons - required.

--
Adrian C

Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
> On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
>> There’s an interesting report just published here
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
>>
>> It’s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly reproduce
>> here.
>>
> Well I haven't read all 201 pages only the Introduction and Key Findings,
> and skimmed the reset, but am not at all impressed.  It's sloppily put
> together, there is a glossary/list of acronyms near the start which is
> partly but not properly in alphabetical order: what a cock-up!   There is
> mention of Freesat here and there, but no proper consideration of where
> satellite broadcasting fits in, the whole report is really just a
> comparison of terrestrial broadcasting and Internet channels.  And they
> seem to think that those of us relying mostly on terrestrial broadcasting
> are luddites or dinosaurs in the twilight of our lives.
>
> Nowhere could I find any coverage of one of the most off-putting features
> of Internet channels (iPlayer, My5, YouTube, etc.) - the user interface
> on all devices that I know about is simply awful: very laggy pause
> button, very limited ability to rewind or fast-forward, and usually no
> ability to skip adverts.
>
> We use these Internet channels when necessary, but normally rely on
> recording the programmes we want to watch on our own digital video
> recorder and then play them back at a time suitable for us. The play-back
> allows us to fast-forward through ads and trailers, to pause instantly,
> and rewind or space forwards at any speed between 2x and 64x if we want
> to.  All this seems much better than any Internet-based system.  It may
> be that the software will improve and latency may go down gradually, but
> pausing an Internet stream is bound to be less satisfactory as it
> essentially involves sending a command to a remote server.
>
>

It works very well with an iPad as the interface to iPlayer/ITVX with the
stream then sent to the TV via a Chromecast device. Pause/unpause is
instant. If you pay for ITVX there are no adverts. A SkyQ box (using an
Internet obtained programme) works better for forward/backwards winding
because it downloads a copy onto the local hard disk. Unfortunately Sky
seem to want to do away with the local disk on their Internet only boxes.

The fundamental issue with Internet delivered content is it puts all the
power (programme retention, ad skipping) back into the hands of the
broadcasters.

I’m afraid it is only the older generations that use linear TV and digital
recorders. Both my offspring (late 20s) only watch TV via Internet streams.
Neither has an antenna feed to their TVs.

In article <lp9603F549eU1@mid.individual.net>,
   Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/11/2024 18:59, Max Demian wrote:
> > On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
> >
> >> There‘s an interesting report just published here
> >>
> >> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
> >>
> >> It‘s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly
> >> reproduce
> >> here.
> >
> > What does it say? Why isn't there an abstract?
> >

> <quote>

> Audience Analysis
> In 2023, 87% of UK households had an internet-enabled primary TV and
> approximately 18% used the internet exclusively as their primary way to
> watch
> television. 17% of UK households were dependent on digital terrestrial
> television for their TV viewing.

> # Homes that were dependent on digital terrestrial television included
> 13,000
> homes in areas without fixed-line broadband, 1.7 million homes without
> broadband access for reasons of affordability or choice, 2.2 million
> homes with
> broadband where the TV is unconnected to the internet and 0.7 million
> with an
> internet-connected TV whose viewing is more than 80% linear.

> # In 2023, 90% of those without a broadband connection were aged over
> 55. They
> were more likely to identify as female and to live on their own. 80% of
> those with
> no broadband connection were within the C2DE socioeconomic bands. They
> were also more likely to live in the north of England, Wales, Scotland and
> Northern Ireland and have a disability.

> # In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services. Internet
> delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of households at 71%
> of homes. A small minority — 5% of homes — will remain wholly reliant on
> digital terrestrial television broadcast."

> </quote>

> On the other hand the technology of television is too confusing for
> some, and looks like telephone landlines is heading the same way,
> equally as unfathomable as DAB and mobile phones for the same people.

as was FM some years ago. When Radio 3 lost medium wave, people were
concened about the new-fangled FM - it had only been there for about 40
years.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England -  sent from my RISC OS  4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Clive Page wrote:
>
>> the whole report is really just a comparison of terrestrial broadcasting
>> and Internet channels.  And they seem to think that those of us relying
>> mostly on terrestrial broadcasting are luddites or dinosaurs in the
>> twilight of our lives.
>
> There might be a modicum of truth in that, maybe more-so when looking
> from the other end of the telescope?
>
> I don't watch much streaming TV, but when I do (e.g. royal occasions)
> it's been to see how good the 4K/UHD quality is, and how well the
> service holds-up ... which hasn't been brilliant, the weakness is
> outside my house because from satellite I used to be able to watch the
> 4K/UHD demo channels perfectly well.
>
> Seems like anything beyond 1080 is losing out anyway, they didn't bother
> with Euro24, I think.
>

The report does address the issues surrounding the delivery of UHD
programming, especially live events, towards the end. I’m sure it will all
be fixed in the next decade or so. Think back ten years and consider how
far we have come in terms of content delivery.

On Sat, 09 Nov 24 14:00:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <lp9603F549eU1@mid.individual.net>,
>   Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2024 18:59, Max Demian wrote:
>> > On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
>> >
>> >> There‘s an interesting report just published here
>> >>
>> >> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
>> >>
>> >> It‘s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly
>> >> reproduce
>> >> here.
>> >
>> > What does it say? Why isn't there an abstract?
>> >
>
>> <quote>
>
>> Audience Analysis
>> In 2023, 87% of UK households had an internet-enabled primary TV and
>> approximately 18% used the internet exclusively as their primary way to
>> watch
>> television. 17% of UK households were dependent on digital terrestrial
>> television for their TV viewing.
>
>> # Homes that were dependent on digital terrestrial television included
>> 13,000
>> homes in areas without fixed-line broadband, 1.7 million homes without
>> broadband access for reasons of affordability or choice, 2.2 million
>> homes with
>> broadband where the TV is unconnected to the internet and 0.7 million
>> with an
>> internet-connected TV whose viewing is more than 80% linear.
>
>> # In 2023, 90% of those without a broadband connection were aged over
>> 55. They
>> were more likely to identify as female and to live on their own. 80% of
>> those with
>> no broadband connection were within the C2DE socioeconomic bands. They
>> were also more likely to live in the north of England, Wales, Scotland and
>> Northern Ireland and have a disability.
>
>> # In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services. Internet
>> delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of households at 71%
>> of homes. A small minority — 5% of homes — will remain wholly reliant on
>> digital terrestrial television broadcast."
>
>> </quote>
>
>> On the other hand the technology of television is too confusing for
>> some, and looks like telephone landlines is heading the same way,
>> equally as unfathomable as DAB and mobile phones for the same people.
>
>as was FM some years ago. When Radio 3 lost medium wave, people were
>concened about the new-fangled FM - it had only been there for about 40
>years.

Was the principal concern not about Test Match Special?

In article <t2fvij1bcaeq1nj0u2foa55l1miop6f4r9@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Nov 24 14:00:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> >In article <lp9603F549eU1@mid.individual.net>, Adrian Caspersz
> >   <email@here.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 08/11/2024 18:59, Max Demian wrote:
> >> > On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> There‘s an interesting report just published here
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
> >> >>
> >> >> It‘s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly
> >> >> reproduce here.
> >> >
> >> > What does it say? Why isn't there an abstract?
> >> >
> >
> >> <quote>
> >
> >> Audience Analysis In 2023, 87% of UK households had an
> >> internet-enabled primary TV and approximately 18% used the internet
> >> exclusively as their primary way to watch television. 17% of UK
> >> households were dependent on digital terrestrial television for their
> >> TV viewing.
> >
> >> # Homes that were dependent on digital terrestrial television included
> >> 13,000 homes in areas without fixed-line broadband, 1.7 million homes
> >> without broadband access for reasons of affordability or choice, 2.2
> >> million homes with broadband where the TV is unconnected to the
> >> internet and 0.7 million with an internet-connected TV whose viewing
> >> is more than 80% linear.
> >
> >> # In 2023, 90% of those without a broadband connection were aged over
> >> 55. They were more likely to identify as female and to live on their
> >> own. 80% of those with no broadband connection were within the C2DE
> >> socioeconomic bands. They were also more likely to live in the north
> >> of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and have a disability.
> >
> >> # In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services.
> >> Internet delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of
> >> households at 71% of homes. A small minority — 5% of homes — will
> >> remain wholly reliant on digital terrestrial television broadcast."
> >
> >> </quote>
> >
> >> On the other hand the technology of television is too confusing for
> >> some, and looks like telephone landlines is heading the same way,
> >> equally as unfathomable as DAB and mobile phones for the same people.
> >
> >as was FM some years ago. When Radio 3 lost medium wave, people were
> >concened about the new-fangled FM - it had only been there for about 40
> >years.

> Was the principal concern not about Test Match Special?

No, these were listeners to real Radio 3.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England -  sent from my RISC OS  4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 09.11.2024 um 13:22 Uhr Adrian Caspersz wrote:

> ● In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services.
> Internet delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of
> households at 71% of homes. A small minority – 5% of homes – will
> remain wholly reliant on digital terrestrial television broadcast."

I have some doubt that terrestrial TV signals will still exist then in
the way they exist nowadays. It will be rather expensive to provide
them for a low amount of users and I assume they will be switched off
and people have to use internet.

In CATV networks, some operators switched off most channels and
migrated people to IPTV because it needs less bandwidth, which can be
used for internet access.

-- 
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1731154931muell@cartoonies.org

On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 12:05:18 +0000, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:

>Nowhere could I find any coverage of one of the most
>off-putting features of Internet channels (iPlayer, My5,
>YouTube, etc.) - the user interface on all devices that
>I know about is simply awful: very laggy pause button, >
>very limited ability to rewind or fast-forward, and
>usually no ability to skip adverts.

If this is your experience you're using the wrong equipment. The
so-called 'smart' features built into most TV sets that I've seen do
indeed have very sluggish interfaces, but separate streaming devices
designed for the purpose are much better. This is probably because,
being cheaper than TV sets, they get replaced more frequently so in
most cases will have more up to date software.

And you're not just limited to watching TV. A standard file manager
available from the Amazon appstore (i.e. nothing unofficial like
sideloading necessary) enables me to browse files on my PC over the
local network, so I can look at my family photos on the big screen
from the comfort of my sofa. Everything can be controlled by a single
remote control, though as the connection is via bluetooth you can also
add keyboards, mice etc, as you wish.

Most (maybe all) of the terrestrial catchup services offer the option
of paying a subscription to watch without adverts, and I decided to do
this with ITVX. I've been enjoying re-watching Inspector Morse, as
they seem to have all of the episodes from the very start (and I've
forgotten the plots). They were originally made on film, the earliest
ones in 4:3 with mono sound, and broadcast in what we would now call
'standard definition' PAL (because that's all we had back then) but
the first series appears to have been digitally re-scanned and
restored. They're so clear and steady and totally devoid of film
blemishes that if you didn't know their history you might not realise
they'd originated on film at all, and of course they've been scanned
in high definition, so it amuses me to realise that what we can watch
now on a digital streaming service is better quality than anyone could
have seen when watching the original broadcast. It's usually the other
way round with old TV material.

Rod.

In article <b721jjlssbc1h3dn0oc56pg722is1uclbk@4ax.com>,
   Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> And you're not just limited to watching TV. A standard file manager
> available from the Amazon appstore (i.e. nothing unofficial like
> sideloading necessary) enables me to browse files on my PC over the
> local network, so I can look at my family photos on the big screen
> from the comfort of my sofa.

I didn't know about this and so went to have a look for our 4K Amazon
Fire Stick.

I found ES Fie Explorer which it said was free or to quote Amazon -
"you own it".

So I decided to go for it and have a play. At the last minute it
tells you there is a 1 week's free trial then it's £7.78 per month.
Surely no one would pay that would that would they? I backed out
sharpish.


Bob.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> On 09.11.2024 um 13:22 Uhr Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>
> > ● In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services.
> > Internet delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of
> > households at 71% of homes. A small minority – 5% of homes – will
> > remain wholly reliant on digital terrestrial television broadcast."
>
> I have some doubt that terrestrial TV signals will still exist then in
> the way they exist nowadays. It will be rather expensive to provide
> them for a low amount of users and I assume they will be switched off
> and people have to use internet.
>
> In CATV networks, some operators switched off most channels and
> migrated people to IPTV because it needs less bandwidth, which can be
> used for internet access.

I think there's a case to be made for:

1. Everyone gets fibre
2. People on low incomes get 'free broadband' ( (c) J.Corbyn),
maybe as part of their licence fee.  Make it a regulatory condition for big
ISPs to offer that service (after all they did get a big chunk of public
money for their fibre installs)
3. Some kind of Freeview box that uses the broadband to offer iPlayer/etc as
well as live TV streams.  Include it as part of the 'free broadband' offer,
and put it on general sale for everyone else.
4. Continue to support the usual IPTV platforms (Android/Apple TV etc) as
first class citizens (yes BBC, subtitles on Apple TV are non-negotiable).
5. Decommission the DVB-T and DVB-S networks

I think the biggest piece of work is #3 - a good number of people just want
IPTV to work like broadcast with a bunch of channels accessed by number.  As
soon as you start dragging in 'apps' with menus and stuff you've lost them.

(Probably the other issue with this is that broadcasters are desperate to
have their walled gardens - forced account logins, not supporting platforms
because they're pushing their own, etc.  They seem to forget that watching
TV used to be as simple as 1, 2, 3)

Theo

On 10/11/2024 13:13, Theo wrote:
> 1. Everyone gets fibre
> 2. People on low incomes get 'free broadband' ( (c) J.Corbyn),
> maybe as part of their licence fee.  Make it a regulatory condition for big
> ISPs to offer that service (after all they did get a big chunk of public
> money for their fibre installs)
> 3. Some kind of Freeview box that uses the broadband to offer iPlayer/etc as
> well as live TV streams.  Include it as part of the 'free broadband' offer,
> and put it on general sale for everyone else.
> 4. Continue to support the usual IPTV platforms (Android/Apple TV etc) as
> first class citizens (yes BBC, subtitles on Apple TV are non-negotiable).
> 5. Decommission the DVB-T and DVB-S networks
>
> I think the biggest piece of work is #3 - a good number of people just want
> IPTV to work like broadcast with a bunch of channels accessed by number.  As
> soon as you start dragging in 'apps' with menus and stuff you've lost them.
>
> (Probably the other issue with this is that broadcasters are desperate to
> have their walled gardens - forced account logins, not supporting platforms
> because they're pushing their own, etc.  They seem to forget that watching
> TV used to be as simple as 1, 2, 3)
>
> Theo



Why should everyone get free broadband?

They do not get free electricity, water, gas etc etc.  Surely they are
more important.  The Left will portray it as being essential so they
access lots of highly education stuff when we all know it will be used
mainly to watch sport and porn.

They keep pushing Freely in TV adverts as just needing a WiFi connection
but do not seem to mention that the WiFi needs a connection to broadband.

On 10/11/2024 13:13, Theo wrote:

> I think the biggest piece of work is #3 - a good number of people just want
> IPTV to work like broadcast with a bunch of channels accessed by number.  As
> soon as you start dragging in 'apps' with menus and stuff you've lost them.
>
Freeview has already gone a fair way towards that. There are a lot of
channels where my Freeview, almost smart, TV says "Connect to the
internet to watch this channel"

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> Why should everyone get free broadband?

Not everyone, just those on low incomes.  They currently pay a licence fee
of ~£15pm to watch TV.  Give them ~20Mbps broadband included in that package.
Then you can turn off the terrestrial transmitters.

If people don't have broadband you have to keep running a Freeview service.
If you can make the major ISPs offer the 'free' broadband (because they got
lots of government cash to install fibre) then it might actually cost less
than running DVB-T.

> They do not get free electricity, water, gas etc etc.  Surely they are
> more important.  The Left will portray it as being essential so they
> access lots of highly education stuff when we all know it will be used
> mainly to watch sport and porn.

...sounds much like TV to me.

> They keep pushing Freely in TV adverts as just needing a WiFi connection
> but do not seem to mention that the WiFi needs a connection to broadband.

Freely is a mess because you have to buy a new TV, and most of the ones they
offer are Hisense junk.  Offer Freely on a separate box, or better an app
for existing boxes, and then they might be on to something.

Theo

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <b721jjlssbc1h3dn0oc56pg722is1uclbk@4ax.com>,
>    Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > And you're not just limited to watching TV. A standard file manager
> > available from the Amazon appstore (i.e. nothing unofficial like
> > sideloading necessary) enables me to browse files on my PC over the
> > local network, so I can look at my family photos on the big screen
> > from the comfort of my sofa.
>
> I didn't know about this and so went to have a look for our 4K Amazon
> Fire Stick.
>
> I found ES Fie Explorer which it said was free or to quote Amazon -
> "you own it".
>
> So I decided to go for it and have a play. At the last minute it
> tells you there is a 1 week's free trial then it's £7.78 per month.
> Surely no one would pay that would that would they? I backed out
> sharpish.

ES File Explorer used to be good.  Then they got bought out by some shady
outfit and now they play these kind of games.

Are there not other file managers in the Amazon app store?

Theo

On 10 Nov 2024 13:13:44 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>I think there's a case to be made for:
>
>1. Everyone gets fibre
>2. People on low incomes get 'free broadband' ( (c) J.Corbyn),
>maybe as part of their licence fee.  Make it a regulatory condition for big
>ISPs to offer that service (after all they did get a big chunk of public
>money for their fibre installs)
>3. Some kind of Freeview box that uses the broadband to offer iPlayer/etc as
>well as live TV streams.  Include it as part of the 'free broadband' offer,
>and put it on general sale for everyone else.
[...]

1. Yes, fibre will eventually spread everywhere, just like any other
vital service. It'll take time, but it will happen.

2. Licence fee? Really? Its days are numbered already. And why should
anyone have their internet free? Maybe it could be offered with
different service levels at different prices, different video
resolutions for example, just as the likes of Netflix already do.

3. What's the point of 'live' streams, which only enable us to watch
programmes according to somebody else's broadcast timetable, when
streaming gives us the means to watch programmes whenever we want? We
don't even need to record them ourslves. Why would we want to go back
to the dark ages when we had to be in when our programme was on?

Some freeview boxes already include some internet streaming services,
but dedicated streaming devices do it better. It may take a few
decades but eventually there will be no point in Freeview.

Rod.

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:58:13 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <b721jjlssbc1h3dn0oc56pg722is1uclbk@4ax.com>,
>   Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> And you're not just limited to watching TV. A standard file manager
>> available from the Amazon appstore (i.e. nothing unofficial like
>> sideloading necessary) enables me to browse files on my PC over the
>> local network, so I can look at my family photos on the big screen
>> from the comfort of my sofa.
>
>I didn't know about this and so went to have a look for our 4K Amazon
>Fire Stick.
>
>I found ES Fie Explorer which it said was free or to quote Amazon -
>"you own it".
>
>So I decided to go for it and have a play. At the last minute it
>tells you there is a 1 week's free trial then it's £7.78 per month.
>Surely no one would pay that would that would they? I backed out
>sharpish.
>
>
>Bob.

I've just checked. The program I use is called 'Xplore' and doesn't
cost me anything extra.

I don't know how much an Amazon stick will allow you to do without a
Prime subscription because I was already subscribed to Prime before I
got my first streaming device (which was a PC running Windows 7) but I
think Xplore is separate from Amazon though it's in their appstore. It
certainly never asked me for any extra money.

Rod.

Clive Page wrote:

>We use these Internet channels when necessary, but normally rely on recording the programmes we want to watch on our own digital video recorder and then play them back at a time suitable for us. The play-back allows us to fast-forward through ads and trailers, to pause instantly, and rewind or space forwards at any speed between 2x and 64x if we want to.  All this seems much better than any Internet-based system.  It may be that the software will improve and latency may go down gradually, but pausing an Internet stream is bound to be less satisfactory as it essentially involves sending a command to a remote server.

We do much the same. My guess is that many of the "broadcasters"
would far prefer to have us all restricted to viewing online, on
demand, with no ability to record and skip the adverts.

When I had to replace my PVR recently, it was quite clear that
this is now becoming a niche product, with few options available.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon  Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk  @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

In article <8hh1jjtjmp736h03ldek4ptoinqs49jlh0@4ax.com>,
   Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:


> I've just checked. The program I use is called 'Xplore' and doesn't
> cost me anything extra.

Interesting thanks.

> I don't know how much an Amazon stick will allow you to do without
> a Prime subscription because I was already subscribed to Prime
> before I got my first streaming device (which was a PC running
> Windows 7) but I think Xplore is separate from Amazon though it's
> in their appstore.

My wife does have an Amazon prime subscription and I've just had
another look. No Xplore in my available apps I'm disappointed to say.
It does have VLC and I do have that installed.

Cheers,

Bob.

On 10/11/2024 14:22, Theo wrote:
> Not everyone, just those on low incomes.  They currently pay a licence fee
> of ~£15pm to watch TV.  Give them ~20Mbps broadband included in that package.
> Then you can turn off the terrestrial transmitters.



So why not free electricity, water, gas etc?  Surely they are more
important.

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:42:36 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>My wife does have an Amazon prime subscription and I've just had
>another look. No Xplore in my available apps I'm disappointed to say.
>It does have VLC and I do have that installed.

That's very strange. If I go to the appstore and search for it, mine
shows as already installed of course, and I don't want to uninstall it
to check if it can still be found in the store, but I don't recall
having to do anything special to install it.

If you really can't find it, if perhaps it's been removed for some
reason, another approach would be to install 'Downloader' and then see
if you can sideload Xplore from one of the alternative file sources.
There are several, but for starters you might try a Youtube channel
called 'firetvsticks' where a nice lady called Tanya explains how to
install Downloader and use it to install apps from her fileserver. I
didn't have to do this to install Xplore, but it might be worth a try.

Just checked. Xplore *is* in Tanya's list of files. You'll find it
easier to navigate Downloader if you connect a bluetooth mouse,
because sterering the mouse cursor around with the normal remote
control is a bit tricky, but it can be done.

Rod.

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:24:57 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:

> Clive Page wrote:
>
>>We use these Internet channels when necessary, but normally rely on
>>recording the programmes we want to watch on our own digital video
>>recorder and then play them back at a time suitable for us. The
>>play-back allows us to fast-forward through ads and trailers, to pause
>>instantly, and rewind or space forwards at any speed between 2x and 64x
>>if we want to.  All this seems much better than any Internet-based
>>system.  It may be that the software will improve and latency may go
>>down gradually, but pausing an Internet stream is bound to be less
>>satisfactory as it essentially involves sending a command to a remote
>>server.
>
> We do much the same. My guess is that many of the "broadcasters" would
> far prefer to have us all restricted to viewing online, on demand, with
> no ability to record and skip the adverts.
>
> When I had to replace my PVR recently, it was quite clear that this is
> now becoming a niche product, with few options available.
>
> Chris

For my simple needs I use the computer browser with online iPlayer and
copy the screen from the 55" tv to make the video file using an MP4 codec.
I reduce the window size, so the file isn't too large. My screen capture
application of choice is oCam.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 10/11/2024 14:22, Theo wrote:
> > Not everyone, just those on low incomes.  They currently pay a licence fee
> > of ~£15pm to watch TV.  Give them ~20Mbps broadband included in that package.
> > Then you can turn off the terrestrial transmitters.
>
> So why not free electricity, water, gas etc?  Surely they are more
> important.

If it's cheaper than running the DTT infrastructure, it saves money.
Giving people free gas doesn't save money.

Theo

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2024 13:13:44 +0000 (GMT), Theo
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >I think there's a case to be made for:
> >
> >1. Everyone gets fibre
> >2. People on low incomes get 'free broadband' ( (c) J.Corbyn),
> >maybe as part of their licence fee.  Make it a regulatory condition for big
> >ISPs to offer that service (after all they did get a big chunk of public
> >money for their fibre installs)
> >3. Some kind of Freeview box that uses the broadband to offer iPlayer/etc as
> >well as live TV streams.  Include it as part of the 'free broadband' offer,
> >and put it on general sale for everyone else.
> [...]
>
> 1. Yes, fibre will eventually spread everywhere, just like any other
> vital service. It'll take time, but it will happen.
>
> 2. Licence fee? Really? Its days are numbered already. And why should
> anyone have their internet free? Maybe it could be offered with
> different service levels at different prices, different video
> resolutions for example, just as the likes of Netflix already do.

Licence fee = however public TV is paid for.  Either you get (some level of)
TV with your internet service or (some level of) internet with your TV
service, it amounts to roughly the same thing, and the amount of money paid
will likely not change.

The point about 'free' is that people already pay a licence fee.  For those
who don't have broadband give them some basic level of internet and you can
turn off the DTT transmitters and give them an internet freeview-style box.
Otherwise you have to keep them running much longer, because people won't
want their DTT service turned off without an alternative.

(similar to the switch to 'digital voice', it only works if there's an easy
transition.  If BT said 'we're turning off landlines, everyone use mobiles'
that would be politically very difficult.  For one thing you'd need to
invest a lot more to cover all the corner cases)

> 3. What's the point of 'live' streams, which only enable us to watch
> programmes according to somebody else's broadcast timetable, when
> streaming gives us the means to watch programmes whenever we want? We
> don't even need to record them ourslves. Why would we want to go back
> to the dark ages when we had to be in when our programme was on?

Live sport and live news are things people watch.

Meanwhile people still listen to the radio even though music streaming
exists.  Nowadays 'radio' is often just a playout of recorded music
interspersed with pre-recorded continuity bits, but people still listen to
it.  It's much less work than faffing with Spotify or whatever.

In other words, 'live' TV could be just a playlist of programmes to stream,
but it saves the effort of having to choose what to watch.  Some places like
pubs just have the TV on in the background (often live news but not always)
and they explicitly do not select which programmes to watch - they just want
wallpaper, just like the radio is wallpaper.

> Some freeview boxes already include some internet streaming services,
> but dedicated streaming devices do it better. It may take a few
> decades but eventually there will be no point in Freeview.

Agreed.  But one problem today is much streaming doesn't do 'TV', it's
siloed into apps.  People don't care about apps, they just want to watch
stuff and the less they have to interact with apps the better.

Theo

In article <a+f*UbdZz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
   Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> > Why should everyone get free broadband?

> Not everyone, just those on low incomes.  They currently pay a
> licence fee of ~£15pm to watch TV.  Give them ~20Mbps broadband
> included in that package. Then you can turn off the terrestrial
> transmitters.

Why not scrap the absurd and outdated licence fee then people would
have £15 ppm towards getting their own Broadband if they want and no
state hand outs generating yet another expense for the tax payer.

Bob

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:51:18 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:

> Why not scrap the absurd and outdated licence fee then people would have
> £15 ppm towards getting their own Broadband if they want and no state
> hand outs generating yet another expense for the tax payer.


How would the BBC be funded?  Out of general taxation?  So the taxpayer
would still be paying.  The other alternatives would be subscription or
advertising.

--
TOJ

On 10/11/2024 19:02, Theo wrote:
> The point about 'free' is that people already pay a licence fee.  For those
> who don't have broadband give them some basic level of internet and you can
> turn off the DTT transmitters and give them an internet freeview-style box.
> Otherwise you have to keep them running much longer, because people won't
> want their DTT service turned off without an alternative.


I have a fast broadband connection but DTT is more reliable.

On 10/11/2024 22:22, The Other John wrote:
> How would the BBC be funded?  Out of general taxation?  So the taxpayer
> would still be paying.  The other alternatives would be subscription or
> advertising.


And we would many of things provided by the BBC, they would only be
available to people on premium services and even then not as good - just
look at ITV and Sky.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 10/11/2024 19:02, Theo wrote:
>> The point about 'free' is that people already pay a licence fee.  For those
>> who don't have broadband give them some basic level of internet and you can
>> turn off the DTT transmitters and give them an internet freeview-style box.
>> Otherwise you have to keep them running much longer, because people won't
>> want their DTT service turned off without an alternative.
>
>
> I have a fast broadband connection but DTT is more reliable.
>

The issue of reliability was raised in the report and yes DTT does have a
greater up time. However we do need to consider where things will be in ten
years time. I’ve had full fibre broadband via CityFibre and IDNet for a
shade over a year now. It has never suffered any downtime so far.

Tweed wrote:

> The issue of reliability was raised in the report and yes DTT does have a
> greater up time. However we do need to consider where things will be in ten
> years time. I’ve had full fibre broadband via CityFibre and IDNet for a
> shade over a year now. It has never suffered any downtime so far.

Lack of bandwidth in the last mile is not the issue I have experienced,
it's the upstream infrastructure that suffers during "mass events" as I
mentioned.

jon wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:24:57 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:

>> When I had to replace my PVR recently, it was quite clear that this is
>> now becoming a niche product, with few options available.

>For my simple needs I use the computer browser with online iPlayer and
>copy the screen from the 55" tv to make the video file using an MP4 codec.
>I reduce the window size, so the file isn't too large. My screen capture
>application of choice is oCam.

In our case, the ability of the new PVR to record 4 channels
simultaneously has proved a great benefit.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon  Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk  @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Tweed wrote:
>
> > The issue of reliability was raised in the report and yes DTT does have a
> > greater up time. However we do need to consider where things will be in ten
> > years time. I’ve had full fibre broadband via CityFibre and IDNet for a
> > shade over a year now. It has never suffered any downtime so far.
>
> Lack of bandwidth in the last mile is not the issue I have experienced,
> it's the upstream infrastructure that suffers during "mass events" as I
> mentioned.

Should we be considering at least one type of ultra-reliable delivery
and reception system that isn't liable to disruption in the event of
hostilities?  The problem is that if nobody uses it in peacetime, they
won't have it when they need it.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 22:22:28 -0000 (UTC), The Other John
<nomail@here.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:51:18 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>> Why not scrap the absurd and outdated licence fee then people would have
>> £15 ppm towards getting their own Broadband if they want and no state
>> hand outs generating yet another expense for the tax payer.
>
>
>How would the BBC be funded?

That's not our problem. It should be up to the BBC to earn its keep on
the basis of what it produces and to work out its own finances, just
like any other business. It's not the 1950s and the BBC isn't special
any more.

>Out of general taxation?  So the taxpayer
>would still be paying.

No. It makes no more sense to give the BBC 'free money' than the
suggestion of giving householders free internet.

>The other alternatives would be subscription or
>advertising.

Quite so. These are tried and trusted systems that are already in use,
and apparently working quite well for everybody else.

Rod.

In article <vgrbn3$j8k9$1@dont-email.me>,
   The Other John <nomail@here.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:51:18 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:

> > Why not scrap the absurd and outdated licence fee then people
> > would have £15 ppm towards getting their own Broadband if they
> > want and no state hand outs generating yet another expense for
> > the tax payer.

> How would the BBC be funded?  Out of general taxation?  So the
> taxpayer would still be paying.  The other alternatives would be
> subscription or advertising.

I would not fund the BBC from any form of forced taxation. It's an
outdated concept. Not everyone who has a television watches the BBC.
If their product is so good, then a Netflix model for the BBC would
take out the telly tax and stop the need for transmitters.

Many people see it for what it is, a propaganda machine. It can't
even call a terrorist a terrorist.
Every single word here from JHB is spot on.
https://youtu.be/KhR256ocCNE

She gets to the BBC and their shameful reporting towards the end.


Bob.

In article <vgrdj1$jiu3$1@dont-email.me>,
   JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

> I have a fast broadband connection but DTT is more reliable.

Having thought about it for a minute or two I have to agree it is,
slightly.

DTT is so very reliable it's hard to remember the last time there was
an issue, certainly in our area. The broadband I have is fast and
reliable, these days, it might blip for a few minutes once a year but
i's rare, very rare.

SO forced to agree as I do, the difference isn't great for me.

Bob.

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 22:54:25 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>I have a fast broadband connection but DTT is more reliable.

I have a fast broadband connection which I use for radio, TV and
telephone, and it works very well. I sold the FM tuner ages ago
because I wasn't using it, and I may get rid of the Freeview boxes too
because they haven't even been switched on for a couple of years. My
house phone also uses the fibre, and has no problems. If your internet
connection is not delivering what it's capable of, then something
needs fixing.

Rod.

On 11/11/2024 10:05, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> That's not our problem. It should be up to the BBC to earn its keep on
> the basis of what it produces and to work out its own finances, just
> like any other business. It's not the 1950s and the BBC isn't special
> any more.



So just Coronation Street, Love Island and Britain's Got Talent on all
day with at least 30 mins of adverts per hour?

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
> > Tweed wrote:
> >
> > > The issue of reliability was raised in the report and yes DTT does have a
> > > greater up time. However we do need to consider where things will be in ten
> > > years time. Iâ??ve had full fibre broadband via CityFibre and IDNet for a
> > > shade over a year now. It has never suffered any downtime so far.
> >
> > Lack of bandwidth in the last mile is not the issue I have experienced,
> > it's the upstream infrastructure that suffers during "mass events" as I
> > mentioned.
>
> Should we be considering at least one type of ultra-reliable delivery
> and reception system that isn't liable to disruption in the event of
> hostilities?  The problem is that if nobody uses it in peacetime, they
> won't have it when they need it.

That probably depends on what 'hostilities' means.  If it's rockets or
missiles it's not hard to take out the TV transmitter sites.  If it's a
cyberattack it could take out servers.  The fibre in the ground is likely to
be fairly resilient but the datacentres serving up the content may be
missile targets.  If you lose power then everything suffers.

OTOH the internet 'routes around damage' and last-mile satellite internet
delivery exists.  If one web site is down there are others.

It doesn't seem there's an obvious best option but perhaps someone should
ask the Ukrainians how they do it?

Theo

On 10/11/2024 11:01, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 12:05:18 +0000, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
>
>> Nowhere could I find any coverage of one of the most
>> off-putting features of Internet channels (iPlayer, My5,
>> YouTube, etc.) - the user interface on all devices that
>> I know about is simply awful: very laggy pause button, >
>> very limited ability to rewind or fast-forward, and
>> usually no ability to skip adverts.
>
> If this is your experience you're using the wrong equipment. The
> so-called 'smart' features built into most TV sets that I've seen do
> indeed have very sluggish interfaces, but separate streaming devices
> designed for the purpose are much better. This is probably because,
> being cheaper than TV sets, they get replaced more frequently so in
> most cases will have more up to date software.

Yes, it may be that newer devices have better and faster interfaces, maybe I should try one.

But do any of them allow you to fast-forward or otherwise skip adverts?   That's a huge advantage of recording programmes on my own video recorder.

--
Clive Page

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Tweed wrote:
> > >
> > > > The issue of reliability was raised in the report and yes DTT does
> > > > have a greater up time. However we do need to consider where things
> > > > will be in ten years time. Iâ??ve had full fibre broadband via
> > > > CityFibre and IDNet for a shade over a year now. It has never
> > > > suffered any downtime so far.
> > >
> > > Lack of bandwidth in the last mile is not the issue I have
> > > experienced, it's the upstream infrastructure that suffers during
> > > "mass events" as I mentioned.
> >
> > Should we be considering at least one type of ultra-reliable delivery
> > and reception system that isn't liable to disruption in the event of
> > hostilities?  The problem is that if nobody uses it in peacetime, they
> > won't have it when they need it.
>
> That probably depends on what 'hostilities' means.  If it's rockets or
> missiles it's not hard to take out the TV transmitter sites.  If it's a
> cyberattack it could take out servers.  The fibre in the ground is likely to
> be fairly resilient but the datacentres serving up the content may be
> missile targets.  If you lose power then everything suffers.
>
> OTOH the internet 'routes around damage' and last-mile satellite internet
> delivery exists.  If one web site is down there are others.
>
> It doesn't seem there's an obvious best option but perhaps someone should
> ask the Ukrainians how they do it?

Dispersed medium wave transmitters with their own generators or Raynet
QRP and Morse?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

In article <8ls1jj1v944ij9h6nhq00j0p6jpduollrb@4ax.com>,
   Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> Just checked. Xplore *is* in Tanya's list of files. You'll find it
> easier to navigate Downloader if you connect a bluetooth mouse,
> because sterering the mouse cursor around with the normal remote
> control is a bit tricky, but it can be done.

I did manage to find and install it late last night, thanks.

I noticed that my UPnP music server which runs on my NAS was showing
and so I gave that a try, It worked, it even played 192/24 flac which
is better that many such apps.

However, after half an hour of use it gave me the choice of 'buy us a
drink or watch an advert for the next half hour of use'.

This wasn't to watch something on the net this was to play music from
my own server.

Hmmmm. I suggest you hang on tightly to your version. :-)

Bob.

On 11/11/2024 12:41, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Dispersed medium wave transmitters with their own generators or Raynet
> QRP and Morse?


I am sure the Royal Signals must have some sort of updated version of
the 'mobile chip shop van'.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 11/11/2024 12:41, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > Dispersed medium wave transmitters with their own generators or Raynet
> > QRP and Morse?
>
>
> I am sure the Royal Signals must have some sort of updated version of
> the 'mobile chip shop van'.

They would need an awful lot of them to cover the entire country.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > That probably depends on what 'hostilities' means.  If it's rockets or
> > missiles it's not hard to take out the TV transmitter sites.  If it's a
> > cyberattack it could take out servers.  The fibre in the ground is likely to
> > be fairly resilient but the datacentres serving up the content may be
> > missile targets.  If you lose power then everything suffers.
>
> Dispersed medium wave transmitters with their own generators or Raynet
> QRP and Morse?

Raynet is just radio hams playing at being an emergency service.  They
aren't, and when there are actual emergencies they seem to be of minimal
use.  For one thing, there are not enough of them for one to already be in
place in an affected area (eg a village cut off by floods).

You'll probably find a lot of people don't have a MW receiver any more.
Perhaps one in the car is the best to be hoped for.

You can only have a useful emergency network using the people and kit you
have in place, and the best kit is that which is well maintained because
it's already in day to day use.

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

[...]
> Raynet is just radio hams playing at being an emergency service.  They
> aren't, and when there are actual emergencies they seem to be of minimal
> use.

 You could say similar about the various voluntary ambulance brigades or
First Aiders - but you may be very grateful they are there when things
go wrong and the emergency services aren't immediately to hand.


> For one thing, there are not enough of them for one to already be in
> place in an affected area (eg a village cut off by floods).

Perhaps there would be more of them if they were encouraged instead of
denigrated.



--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 11/11/2024 13:54, Theo wrote:
> Raynet is just radio hams playing at being an emergency service.  They
> aren't, and when there are actual emergencies they seem to be of minimal
> use.  For one thing, there are not enough of them for one to already be in
> place in an affected area (eg a village cut off by floods).


They put most of the efforts into providing comms for sports events.
Perhaps necessary in the past but there are plenty of companies who can
do it and the events are usually sponsored.

I remember someone over around Aberdeen telling me had worked on comms
for a car rally one year.  They operated from a room in an expensive
hotel, they had not had anything to eat so asked for some sandwiches.
They got some but with a very expensive bill.

He never did any work for RAYNET again.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:54:12 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 11/11/2024 10:05, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> That's not our problem. It should be up to the BBC to earn its keep on
>> the basis of what it produces and to work out its own finances, just
>> like any other business. It's not the 1950s and the BBC isn't special
>> any more.
>
>
>
>So just Coronation Street, Love Island and Britain's Got Talent on all
>day with at least 30 mins of adverts per hour?

If that's really the programme lineup we ended up with from a
self-supporting BBC (which I doubt very much) I wouldn't be watching
anyway, but there's plenty to watch elsewhere. The other channels,
e.g. ITVX, Channel 4, Channel 5, U, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, AppleTV
etc, appear to be able to offer a huge selection of programmes
supported by various combinations of adverts and subscriptions, so I
don't see why the BBC couldn't do the same. They'd soon work out what
they really needed to spend money on if it were their own hard earned
money and not ours. Nothing would clarify their minds like the need to
support themselves by providing what their customers want.

I haven't watched any broadcast TV for at least a couple of years, and
only a few of the programmes I did watch were from the BBC, which
seems poor value for £169, so I cancelled my licence this year and
uninstalled iPlayer from my Amazon stick. I haven't missed it at all.
I used to work for the BBC many years ago, and while I'm proud to have
been part of what it once was, it's hardly recognisable today. I'd be
rather sad if the BBC disappeared completely, but if it wants to
survive it'll have to join the 21st century like everybody else.

Rod.