Author Topic: UK TV Licence  (Read 6147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #75 on: February 05, 2019, 12:16:14 pm »
[1] a couple of decades ago someone noted that in the future info that went over wires would transfer to wireless, and info that was wireless would become wired. A pretty good prediction!
That was a pretty easy prediction 2 decades ago. If it were made 4 decades ago it would have been very insightful.

"Couple" indicates a lack of precision. The prediction might well have been three decades ago, but not four.

Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5464
  • Country: gb
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #76 on: February 05, 2019, 12:26:50 pm »
Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.
In 1999 ADSL was being deployed. From that point a YouTube like business was inevitable. The extent to which people can watch YouTube while on the move (WiFi around the house, and LTE in public) might surprise someone from 1999, but it shouldn't surprise them too much, especially since OFDM was already establishing itself pretty will for TV broadcasts. No further breakthroughs were needed.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14163
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #77 on: February 05, 2019, 12:44:26 pm »
As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere. :palm:

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

The BBC very sensibly accepted some compromises when their charter and the licence fee last came up for renewal. They recognised the trends you mention above[1] towards the net, and the licence fee now covers viewing over the net.

The reason that BBC3 is not broadcast is because they recognised that its target audience (yoof) was more likely to watch on a computer than a TV. Smart move. Good test case for the future.
I see the point you're making about the youngsters watching on-line more these days and if that was the only change, it wouldn't have been as bad, but they axed some of the most popular TV programmes, such as Family Guy.

I still think it's a dumb move because young people still watch live TV and cutting anything popular reduces support for the licence fee.
 

Offline KaneTW

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 441
  • Country: de
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #78 on: February 05, 2019, 02:30:58 pm »
Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14163
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #79 on: February 05, 2019, 02:57:20 pm »
Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?
Because there's still plenty of good stuff on TV.
 

Offline KaneTW

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 441
  • Country: de
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #80 on: February 05, 2019, 03:41:56 pm »
It's also on the internet, without ads and on demand. Shows that are worth watching and are TV only are a rarity.
 

Online bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14918
  • Country: gb
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #81 on: February 05, 2019, 04:08:12 pm »
Indeed. There's only so many times you can repurpose the main themes:

1. Overly long seasonal vanity competition.
2. People arguing in a town.
3. We really hate one class of people.
4. Science program with precisely no content other than insightful looks from Brian Cox
5. Celebrity only quiz because it's shunned to give money to the plebs.
6. Just! Breaking! News!
7. Social brainwashing for small children.
8. Make a hash of something and sell it for less than you paid for it.
9. Violent controverisal cartoon free of real story telling content.
10. People arguing in a house.
11. Film about someone dying of cancer.
12. Chef shouting at people trying to make something until they cry.
13. Your country's worst criminals, pedophiles, murderers, drivers or some old shit.
14. Muppets and a ball of some sort.
15. Repeats of the above on smaller channels in "best of" scenarios.

Turn it off. Read a book.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2019, 04:11:41 pm by bd139 »
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14163
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #82 on: February 05, 2019, 04:09:08 pm »
It's also on the internet, without ads and on demand. Shows that are worth watching and are TV only are a rarity.
The shows are also available add free on the BBC website to all licence fee payers.
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4135
  • Country: ca
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #83 on: February 05, 2019, 04:11:59 pm »
Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?
Because there's still plenty of good stuff on TV.
Using a TV is easier and casual than using a computer to watch TV.
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #84 on: February 05, 2019, 04:14:20 pm »
Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.
In 1999 ADSL was being deployed. From that point a YouTube like business was inevitable. The extent to which people can watch YouTube while on the move (WiFi around the house, and LTE in public) might surprise someone from 1999, but it shouldn't surprise them too much, especially since OFDM was already establishing itself pretty will for TV broadcasts. No further breakthroughs were needed.

I first became aware of OFDM in the early 90s (i.e. before any 802.11). When my group at work heard about it we instantly thought it would be a very good candidate for WLANs and cellular systems, since it cut straight through the crap about CDMA-vs-TDM.

It is quite likely that I heard the wired/wireless quote around that time.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #85 on: February 05, 2019, 04:16:42 pm »
As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere. :palm:

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

The BBC very sensibly accepted some compromises when their charter and the licence fee last came up for renewal. They recognised the trends you mention above[1] towards the net, and the licence fee now covers viewing over the net.

The reason that BBC3 is not broadcast is because they recognised that its target audience (yoof) was more likely to watch on a computer than a TV. Smart move. Good test case for the future.
I see the point you're making about the youngsters watching on-line more these days and if that was the only change, it wouldn't have been as bad, but they axed some of the most popular TV programmes, such as Family Guy.

I still think it's a dumb move because young people still watch live TV and cutting anything popular reduces support for the licence fee.

Shows, good and bad, get axed all the time - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not.

The BBC had to save money; chopping BBC3 was a way of doing that.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14163
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #86 on: February 05, 2019, 04:28:37 pm »
Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?
Because there's still plenty of good stuff on TV.
Using a TV is easier and casual than using a computer to watch TV.
That's true, but I often have my PC hooked up to my PC, so I can lie on the sofa to watch stuff: normally BBC dramas.

As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere. :palm:

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

The BBC very sensibly accepted some compromises when their charter and the licence fee last came up for renewal. They recognised the trends you mention above[1] towards the net, and the licence fee now covers viewing over the net.

The reason that BBC3 is not broadcast is because they recognised that its target audience (yoof) was more likely to watch on a computer than a TV. Smart move. Good test case for the future.
I see the point you're making about the youngsters watching on-line more these days and if that was the only change, it wouldn't have been as bad, but they axed some of the most popular TV programmes, such as Family Guy.

I still think it's a dumb move because young people still watch live TV and cutting anything popular reduces support for the licence fee.

Shows, good and bad, get axed all the time - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not.

The BBC had to save money; chopping BBC3 was a way of doing that.
Many good shows were axed when they cut BB3, again just to save money. Short term gain, for long term pain: fewer licence fee payers in future.

They could have cut back elsewhere and kept much more of their younger audience.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2484
  • Country: tr
Re: UK TV Licencet
« Reply #87 on: February 05, 2019, 04:47:28 pm »
The BBC's biggest earner is Top Gear.

Still is without the three? Or it's no more?
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline vealmike

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Country: gb
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #88 on: February 05, 2019, 05:03:12 pm »
Yes, I think it still is, because of the number of franchises and re-runs.
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3697
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #89 on: February 05, 2019, 09:51:25 pm »
Tv detector vans were at one time real, they looked for the signal from the flyback coil which could be picked up a long way of. The licence fee can be traced back directly to the con artist Marconi who persuaded the GPO as it was then and the Government of the time that he should have a cut of every radio and TV set manufactured and a fee for all broadcasts signals, it is not even like he really invented radio. 
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11977
  • Country: us
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #90 on: February 06, 2019, 01:25:32 am »
It would have been fun to build a 15kHz (or whatever it was there, 16kHz?) oscillator to troll the TV detector.
 

Offline rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2965
  • Country: us
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #91 on: February 06, 2019, 05:33:57 am »
Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?
Because there's still plenty of good stuff on TV.
Using a TV is easier and casual than using a computer to watch TV.

This year the Superbowl came to my 42" TV over the internet, streamed through a web browser. That's still TV, right?
 

Offline Towger

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1577
  • Country: ie
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #92 on: February 06, 2019, 06:28:05 am »
The licence fee can be traced back directly to the con artist Marconi who persuaded the GPO as it was then and the Government of the time that he should have a cut of every radio and TV set manufactured and a fee for all broadcasts signals, it is not even like he really invented radio.

The Musk of this day :-)

Early wireless sets had to have a BBC/GPO Approved stamp/emblem on them. This generated the money pre TV licence. 
I have a nice double crystal set with it.  Probably dates from when Ireland was part of the UK.

Random example from the internet:
http://dighera.com/radio_archive/marconiphone%20v2%20plate_small.jpg
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 06:30:21 am by Towger »
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3697
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #93 on: February 06, 2019, 06:53:59 pm »
The licence fee can be traced back directly to the con artist Marconi who persuaded the GPO as it was then and the Government of the time that he should have a cut of every radio and TV set manufactured and a fee for all broadcasts signals, it is not even like he really invented radio.

The Musk of this day :-)

Early wireless sets had to have a BBC/GPO Approved stamp/emblem on them. This generated the money pre TV licence. 
I have a nice double crystal set with it.  Probably dates from when Ireland was part of the UK.

Random example from the internet:
http://dighera.com/radio_archive/marconiphone%20v2%20plate_small.jpg
I have several old receivers with the BBC/GPO tab inside along with some with the Marconi royalty payment badge with serial No. on them. One is a transistor unit from the late 60's so even that late the Marconi company was still claiming patent rights on receivers.
 

Offline LapTop006

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
  • Country: au
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #94 on: February 07, 2019, 10:39:18 am »
Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.
In 1999 ADSL was being deployed. From that point a YouTube like business was inevitable. The extent to which people can watch YouTube while on the move (WiFi around the house, and LTE in public) might surprise someone from 1999, but it shouldn't surprise them too much, especially since OFDM was already establishing itself pretty will for TV broadcasts. No further breakthroughs were needed.

I first became aware of OFDM in the early 90s (i.e. before any 802.11). When my group at work heard about it we instantly thought it would be a very good candidate for WLANs and cellular systems, since it cut straight through the crap about CDMA-vs-TDM.

It is quite likely that I heard the wired/wireless quote around that time.

WiFi dates older than you might think, quoth the wiki:
Quote
WaveLAN was a brand name for a family of wireless networking technology sold by NCR, AT&T, and Lucent, as well as being sold by other companies under OEM agreements. The WaveLAN name debuted on the market in 1988 and was in use into the mid-1990s, when Lucent renamed their products to ORiNOCO. WaveLAN laid the important foundation for the formation of IEEE 802.11 working group and the resultant creation of Wi-Fi.
...
WaveLAN was originally designed by COMTEN, a subsidiary of NCR Corporation, (later the Network Products Division of NCR) in 1986-7, and introduced to the market in 1988 as a wireless alternative to Ethernet and Token-Ring.[1] The next year NCR contributed the WaveLAN design to the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee.[2] This led to the founding of the 802.11 Wireless LAN Working Committee which produced the original IEEE 802.11 standard, which eventually became known popularly as Wi-Fi. When NCR was acquired by AT&T in 1991, becoming the AT&T GIS (Global Information Solutions) business unit, the product name was retained, as happened two years later when the product was transferred to the AT&T GBCS (Global Business Communications Systems) business unit, and again when AT&T spun off their GBCS business unit as Lucent in 1995. The technology was also sold as WaveLAN under an OEM agreement by Epson, Hitachi,and NEC, and as the RoamAbout DS by DEC.[3] It competed directly with Aironet's non-802.11 ARLAN lineup, which offered similar speeds, frequency ranges and hardware.
 

Online madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5243
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #95 on: February 07, 2019, 11:03:07 am »
Tv detector vans were at one time real, they looked for the signal from the flyback coil which could be picked up a long way of.

I remember that schools over here had the tuners removed from TVs and VCRs to circumvent paying the TV fee. A detector van would have had fun with that. >:D
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #96 on: February 07, 2019, 03:07:36 pm »
Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.
In 1999 ADSL was being deployed. From that point a YouTube like business was inevitable. The extent to which people can watch YouTube while on the move (WiFi around the house, and LTE in public) might surprise someone from 1999, but it shouldn't surprise them too much, especially since OFDM was already establishing itself pretty will for TV broadcasts. No further breakthroughs were needed.

I first became aware of OFDM in the early 90s (i.e. before any 802.11). When my group at work heard about it we instantly thought it would be a very good candidate for WLANs and cellular systems, since it cut straight through the crap about CDMA-vs-TDM.

It is quite likely that I heard the wired/wireless quote around that time.

WiFi dates older than you might think, quoth the wiki:
Quote
WaveLAN was a brand name for a family of wireless networking technology sold by NCR, AT&T, and Lucent, as well as being sold by other companies under OEM agreements. The WaveLAN name debuted on the market in 1988 and was in use into the mid-1990s, when Lucent renamed their products to ORiNOCO. WaveLAN laid the important foundation for the formation of IEEE 802.11 working group and the resultant creation of Wi-Fi.
...
WaveLAN was originally designed by COMTEN, a subsidiary of NCR Corporation, (later the Network Products Division of NCR) in 1986-7, and introduced to the market in 1988 as a wireless alternative to Ethernet and Token-Ring.[1] The next year NCR contributed the WaveLAN design to the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee.[2] This led to the founding of the 802.11 Wireless LAN Working Committee which produced the original IEEE 802.11 standard, which eventually became known popularly as Wi-Fi. When NCR was acquired by AT&T in 1991, becoming the AT&T GIS (Global Information Solutions) business unit, the product name was retained, as happened two years later when the product was transferred to the AT&T GBCS (Global Business Communications Systems) business unit, and again when AT&T spun off their GBCS business unit as Lucent in 1995. The technology was also sold as WaveLAN under an OEM agreement by Epson, Hitachi,and NEC, and as the RoamAbout DS by DEC.[3] It competed directly with Aironet's non-802.11 ARLAN lineup, which offered similar speeds, frequency ranges and hardware.

No, sorry; WiFi != WLANs.

A more useful quote would be "Wi-Fi (/ˈwaɪfaɪ/) is technology for radio wireless local area networking of devices based on the IEEE 802.11 standards. Wi‑Fi is a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance, which restricts the use of the term Wi-Fi Certified to products that successfully complete interoperability certificatiom". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

There were many many many WLAN technologies in the late 80s and early 90s, all incompatible. I evaluated several.

I was aware of OFDM before 802.11 existed. Indeed, I left that field in 1996 before 802.11 standards even existed. FFI and dates, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#Protocol
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5464
  • Country: gb
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #97 on: February 07, 2019, 03:15:18 pm »
I was aware of OFDM before 802.11 existed. Indeed, I left that field in 1996 before 802.11 standards even existed. FFI and dates, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#Protocol
Read a good comms book from the 1960s and you'll learn all about OFDM. You won't see the name there, but you'll see the technology described as a way to get close to Shannon if its huge complexity ever became economically feasible.
 

Offline sainbablo

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Country: pk
Re: UK TV Licence
« Reply #98 on: February 10, 2019, 05:24:32 pm »

Post offices used to  issue TV  licenses, then banks started collection and  now a flat  rate is  included in power bills, tv  or  no  tv you just pay
but number of tvs doesn't  matter.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf