Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #70684 > unrolled thread

Dynamic bitrate (DAB)

Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast

Contents

  Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-02 10:20 +0100
    Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-02 12:38 +0100
    Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-02 14:39 +0100
      Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 16:03 +0100
        Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-02 16:41 +0100
          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 17:16 +0100
      Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Old John <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-10-03 06:29 +0000
        Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-03 09:29 +0100
          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-04 08:37 +0100
            Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-06 18:06 +0100
              Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-07 10:47 +0100
                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-07 11:03 +0100
                  Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-07 16:06 +0100
                    BBC (was: Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB)) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-07 17:45 +0100
                    Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-07 21:31 +0100
                    Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-07 23:36 +0100
                      Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-08 09:42 +0100
                        Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-08 15:41 +0100
                        Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-08 16:58 +0100
                          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-10-09 08:29 +0100
                            Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-10-09 13:05 +0100
                          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-09 10:14 +0100
                            Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-09 15:31 +0100
                              Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-09 15:40 +0100
                                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-09 15:46 +0100
                                  Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-10 09:08 +0100
                            Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-10 04:14 +0100
                              Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-10 10:05 +0100
                                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-11 06:19 +0100
                      Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-10-08 09:55 +0100
                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-10-07 19:55 +0100
          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-04 07:45 +0000
            Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-06 18:03 +0100
              Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-06 21:33 +0100
                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-10-06 22:51 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#70684 — Dynamic bitrate (DAB)

The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
off-air. Why has the BBC done this? 

I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
capacity as a cost-cutting measure?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#70686

On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?



The big danger is that a politician comes up with the idea of selling 
DAB bandwidth to commercial stations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70687

On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
> The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
> depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
> service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
> though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
> R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
> off-air. Why has the BBC done this?
>
> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
>
If he wants to cut costs, then a lot of the on-line only stuff can go. 
It is, after all the British *Broadcasting* corporation, not the British 
Web Content Maker. Leave iPlayer running, though, as that is handy for 
catching up on the stuff they have broadcast. It saves buying a video 
recorder.
-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70688

On 2026/10/2 14:39:0, John Williamson wrote:
> On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
>> The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
>> depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
>> service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
>> though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
>> R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
>> off-air. Why has the BBC done this?

DAB is probably considered legacy technology, not worthy of
tweaking-type attention when DAB+ is there.>>
>> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
>> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
>> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?

That'll only save money if they pay less, which can only work if there
is someone willing to pay for what's released.>>
> If he wants to cut costs, then a lot of the on-line only stuff can go. 
> It is, after all the British *Broadcasting* corporation, not the British 
> Web Content Maker. Leave iPlayer running, though, as that is handy for 
> catching up on the stuff they have broadcast. It saves buying a video 
> recorder.

Although _I_ agree with you, we are both of an older generation that
listen to what is broadcast; regardless of the name, which is
historical, to keep up with the audience (not just "down with the kids",
but a fair proportion of young adults), they have to do the online stuff
- if we believe what we're told, a lot of the "audience" don't listen to
or watch much live at all.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong. - H.L.Mencken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70689

On 02/10/2026 16:03, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Although _I_ agree with you, we are both of an older generation that
> listen to what is broadcast; regardless of the name, which is
> historical, to keep up with the audience (not just "down with the kids",
> but a fair proportion of young adults), they have to do the online stuff
> - if we believe what we're told, a lot of the "audience" don't listen to
> or watch much live at all.
>
What I was suggesting is dropping the online only content, only keeping 
the stuff that actually gets transmitted available on line.

Timeshifting costs very little, no matter which end of the link it 
happens. What costs money is creating content, not distributing it.

They could also save money by bringing a lot of production back "in 
house", as the current system has to pay for all the backroom staff at 
dozens of creators instead of one department split between all the 
programme creators.

However, the new Boss seems determined to close down all the 
transmitters as soon as he can get away with it, transferring that part 
of the cost from the BBC to the consumer, as we will all need a decent 
broadband speed to watch. In my case, as I can not get a landline 
connection, that will have to be Starlink. My current system is far too 
slow to stream HD (Or even SD) video.
-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70690

On 2026/10/2 16:41:32, John Williamson wrote:
> On 02/10/2026 16:03, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Although _I_ agree with you, we are both of an older generation that
>> listen to what is broadcast; regardless of the name, which is
>> historical, to keep up with the audience (not just "down with the kids",
>> but a fair proportion of young adults), they have to do the online stuff
>> - if we believe what we're told, a lot of the "audience" don't listen to
>> or watch much live at all.
>>
> What I was suggesting is dropping the online only content, only keeping 
> the stuff that actually gets transmitted available on line.
> 
> Timeshifting costs very little, no matter which end of the link it 
> happens. What costs money is creating content, not distributing it.

I am in total agreement with you; however, I do understand that many of
the potential licence-fee payers may think differently.>
> They could also save money by bringing a lot of production back "in 
> house", as the current system has to pay for all the backroom staff at 
> dozens of creators instead of one department split between all the 
> programme creators.

I can't comment on that point.>
> However, the new Boss seems determined to close down all the 
> transmitters as soon as he can get away with it, transferring that part 
> of the cost from the BBC to the consumer, as we will all need a decent 
> broadband speed to watch. In my case, as I can not get a landline 
> connection, that will have to be Starlink. My current system is far too 
> slow to stream HD (Or even SD) video.

That does seem to be the desire :-( , not just with the BBC (I didn't
know it was "their" aim too) but with all sorts of powerful bodies - set
manufacturers, broadband suppliers, and so on - and, especially, OfCom;
the last seems to have a plan to turn off DTV altogether, as soon as
they think they can get away with it. The assumption that everybody has
broadband, and to hell with those who don't, is very similar to the
assumption that everybody has a smartphone, and = more insidiously - a
permanently-on data contract (and can get a connection).
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Religion is a name for opinion that cannot be argued about.
[Heard on Radio 4, 2010-10-18, 9:xx.]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70691

On 2 Oct 2026 at 14:39:00 BST, "John Williamson"
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
>> The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
>> depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
>> service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
>> though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
>> R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
>> off-air. Why has the BBC done this?
>> 
>> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
>> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
>> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
>> 
> If he wants to cut costs, then a lot of the on-line only stuff can go.
> It is, after all the British *Broadcasting* corporation, not the British
> Web Content Maker. Leave iPlayer running, though, as that is handy for
> catching up on the stuff they have broadcast. It saves buying a video
> recorder.

I would be deeply distressed if iPlayer went. I tend to use it more than live
TV.
-- 
God makes power, Man makes engines.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70692

On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 06:29:34 -0000 (UTC), Old John
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 2 Oct 2026 at 14:39:00 BST, "John Williamson"
><johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
>>> The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
>>> depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
>>> service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
>>> though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
>>> R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
>>> off-air. Why has the BBC done this?
>>> 
>>> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
>>> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
>>> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
>>> 
>> If he wants to cut costs, then a lot of the on-line only stuff can go.
>> It is, after all the British *Broadcasting* corporation, not the British
>> Web Content Maker. Leave iPlayer running, though, as that is handy for
>> catching up on the stuff they have broadcast. It saves buying a video
>> recorder.
>
>I would be deeply distressed if iPlayer went. I tend to use it more than live
>TV.

Could they not compromise and make it free in real time and charge for
back catalogue? This would closely resemble the original concept of
the radio/TV licence. I have always thought R4 Extra could be
chargeable as there is no entitlement to watch 1960s comedy. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70707

On Sat, 03 Oct 2026 09:29:25 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>>I would be deeply distressed if iPlayer went. I tend to use it more than live
>>TV.
>
>Could they not compromise and make it free in real time and charge for
>back catalogue? This would closely resemble the original concept of
>the radio/TV licence. I have always thought R4 Extra could be
>chargeable as there is no entitlement to watch 1960s comedy. 

They could make the whole thing subscription based, like other online
services, or maybe individual programmes available for rent or
purchase like some of the movies on Amazon. I don't care what they do
as long as they stop sending me threatening and legally misleading
letters and let me make my own choices about what I want to pay for.

They won't want to of course. Who would want to stop a five billion a
year gravy train? And the government won't want to stop it either,
because they still think that by keeping control of broadcasting they
can control what the public is told, even though an increasing number
of people now get their knowledge of the world from a variety of other
sources. I wonder how long they can keep it going?

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70732

On Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:37:22 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Oct 2026 09:29:25 +0100, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>I would be deeply distressed if iPlayer went. I tend to use it more than live
>>>TV.
>>
>>Could they not compromise and make it free in real time and charge for
>>back catalogue? This would closely resemble the original concept of
>>the radio/TV licence. I have always thought R4 Extra could be
>>chargeable as there is no entitlement to watch 1960s comedy. 
>
>They could make the whole thing subscription based, like other online
>services, or maybe individual programmes available for rent or
>purchase like some of the movies on Amazon. I don't care what they do
>as long as they stop sending me threatening and legally misleading
>letters and let me make my own choices about what I want to pay for.
>
>They won't want to of course. Who would want to stop a five billion a
>year gravy train? And the government won't want to stop it either,
>because they still think that by keeping control of broadcasting they
>can control what the public is told, even though an increasing number
>of people now get their knowledge of the world from a variety of other
>sources. I wonder how long they can keep it going?
>
On your second paragraph, if it's to do with thought processes, surely
the government would be even happier to fund the BBC out of general
taxation (as in Denmark and other countries) then if they are unhappy
with the output they would not need to wait for the next licence
renewal round to make their disapproval known :-) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70741

On Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:06:24 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:37:22 +0100, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Oct 2026 09:29:25 +0100, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>I would be deeply distressed if iPlayer went. I tend to use it more than live
>>>>TV.
>>>
>>>Could they not compromise and make it free in real time and charge for
>>>back catalogue? This would closely resemble the original concept of
>>>the radio/TV licence. I have always thought R4 Extra could be
>>>chargeable as there is no entitlement to watch 1960s comedy. 
>>
>>They could make the whole thing subscription based, like other online
>>services, or maybe individual programmes available for rent or
>>purchase like some of the movies on Amazon. I don't care what they do
>>as long as they stop sending me threatening and legally misleading
>>letters and let me make my own choices about what I want to pay for.
>>
>>They won't want to of course. Who would want to stop a five billion a
>>year gravy train? And the government won't want to stop it either,
>>because they still think that by keeping control of broadcasting they
>>can control what the public is told, even though an increasing number
>>of people now get their knowledge of the world from a variety of other
>>sources. I wonder how long they can keep it going?
>>
>On your second paragraph, if it's to do with thought processes, surely
>the government would be even happier to fund the BBC out of general
>taxation (as in Denmark and other countries) then if they are unhappy
>with the output they would not need to wait for the next licence
>renewal round to make their disapproval known :-) 

The government probably would like to pay for it out of taxes, because
it would mean they retain some control of it. However, if it's really
supposed to be a public service, it should be the public that is in
control of it, by controlling whether we want to pay for it or not.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70742

On 07/10/2026 10:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:06:24 +0100, Scott
> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>> On your second paragraph, if it's to do with thought processes, surely
>> the government would be even happier to fund the BBC out of general
>> taxation (as in Denmark and other countries) then if they are unhappy
>> with the output they would not need to wait for the next licence
>> renewal round to make their disapproval known :-)
>
> The government probably would like to pay for it out of taxes, because
> it would mean they retain some control of it. However, if it's really
> supposed to be a public service, it should be the public that is in
> control of it, by controlling whether we want to pay for it or not.
>
You mean make it a subscription or pay per view service?


-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70751

On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 11:03:45 +0100, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 07/10/2026 10:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:06:24 +0100, Scott
>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> On your second paragraph, if it's to do with thought processes, surely
>>> the government would be even happier to fund the BBC out of general
>>> taxation (as in Denmark and other countries) then if they are unhappy
>>> with the output they would not need to wait for the next licence
>>> renewal round to make their disapproval known :-)
>>
>> The government probably would like to pay for it out of taxes, because
>> it would mean they retain some control of it. However, if it's really
>> supposed to be a public service, it should be the public that is in
>> control of it, by controlling whether we want to pay for it or not.
>>
>You mean make it a subscription or pay per view service?

It already works for the other broadcasters, so why not?

And they don't send me threatening letters if I'm not interested.

Not only threatening but misleading. They say things like "Buy a
licence now to avoid a fine", and the most recent one tells me to get
"correctly licenced", even though I already am; I haven't got a
licence because I don't do anything that requires one, which seems
perfectly correct to me. But still they send the threats. I know
enough not to worry  but I've heard that some people are so
intimidated by this nonsense that they buy TV licences anyway, even
though they don't need to, just to stop the threats. Whatever else
changes, this has got to stop.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70753 — BBC (was: Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB))

On 2026/10/7 16:6:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 11:03:45 +0100, John Williamson
> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/10/2026 10:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
[]
>>> The government probably would like to pay for it out of taxes, because
>>> it would mean they retain some control of it. However, if it's really
>>> supposed to be a public service, it should be the public that is in
>>> control of it, by controlling whether we want to pay for it or not.
>>>
>> You mean make it a subscription or pay per view service?
> 
> It already works for the other broadcasters, so why not?

It "works" for those broadcasters by making them only make programmes
they know they can immediately sell; if the BBC was forced down that
route, it would just become another such broadcaster, losing its uniqueness.

And - I don't mind some of my licence fee being used on things I don't
consume. For example, I hardly ever listen to Radio 3, and don't think
I've listened to Radio 1 for several _decades_ (and I don't watch
EastEnders or Strictly) - but, _I am glad they are there_ (well, R3/R1
anyway).  Whereas I might not be so keen were it a subscription. And
there is also innovation: the BBC _can_ make prog.s that are
experimental, which it is not known whether people will like/follow -
and many of those actually turn out to be popular. Yes, commercial
broadcasters _can_ risk things in that manner - but, from observation,
they do so a lot less.

> 
> And they don't send me threatening letters if I'm not interested.
> 
> Not only threatening but misleading. They say things like "Buy a
> licence now to avoid a fine", and the most recent one tells me to get
> "correctly licenced", even though I already am; I haven't got a
> licence because I don't do anything that requires one, which seems
> perfectly correct to me. But still they send the threats. I know
> enough not to worry  but I've heard that some people are so
> intimidated by this nonsense that they buy TV licences anyway, even
> though they don't need to, just to stop the threats. Whatever else
> changes, this has got to stop.
> 
> Rod.

Now there, I am with you; last time I moved, I cancelled (or let lapse,
I can't remember) the licence on the place I was leaving, and
experienced some of the threatening letters - which are, as you say,
thoroughly nasty. They definitely have to stop. I don't actually blame
the BBC for them, but the company which has been engaged to do the
collection; one of the many bad sides of outsourcing for its own sake.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Try to tell me to watch something because it's brilliant and everyone
says so and therefore I will love it, too, and you lose me for ever.
- Alison Graham, RT 2016/2/6-12

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70756

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 11:03:45 +0100, John Williamson
> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> >On 07/10/2026 10:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:06:24 +0100, Scott
> >> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> On your second paragraph, if it's to do with thought processes, surely
> >>> the government would be even happier to fund the BBC out of general
> >>> taxation (as in Denmark and other countries) then if they are unhappy
> >>> with the output they would not need to wait for the next licence
> >>> renewal round to make their disapproval known :-)
> >>
> >> The government probably would like to pay for it out of taxes, because
> >> it would mean they retain some control of it. However, if it's really
> >> supposed to be a public service, it should be the public that is in
> >> control of it, by controlling whether we want to pay for it or not.
> >>
> >You mean make it a subscription or pay per view service?
> 
> It already works for the other broadcasters, so why not?
> 
> And they don't send me threatening letters if I'm not interested.
> 
> Not only threatening but misleading. They say things like "Buy a
> licence now to avoid a fine", and the most recent one tells me to get
> "correctly licenced", even though I already am; I haven't got a
> licence because I don't do anything that requires one, which seems
> perfectly correct to me. But still they send the threats. I know
> enough not to worry  but I've heard that some people are so
> intimidated by this nonsense that they buy TV licences anyway, even
> though they don't need to, just to stop the threats. Whatever else
> changes, this has got to stop.

Any letter addressed to "The Legal Occupier" goes straight into the
recycling bag - unread.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70758

On 07/10/2026 16:06, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> It already works for the other broadcasters, so why not?


And just look what you end up on the channels dependent on adverts or 
subscriptions.

And even worse with radio.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70759

On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 23:36:03 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 07/10/2026 16:06, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> It already works for the other broadcasters, so why not?
>
>
>And just look what you end up on the channels dependent on adverts or 
>subscriptions.
>
>And even worse with radio.

I end up with a system where I can *choose* what I think is worth
paying for, and don't have to pay for what I don't want,  without
being threatened with fines or prison if my choice doesn't include
what somebody else thinks I should have.

What's so terrible about adverts anyway? ITV, for example, has been
supported in this way since 1955 and seems to have survived quite
well. It now has many years worth of stored material that anyone with
an internet connection can watch totally free with adverts, or for a
small subscription without them.

The subscription to watch ITVX without adverts is £5.99 per month, but
if I wanted to watch anything from the BBC it would cost £15.00 per
month, so I don't. I could cancel my ITVX subscription any time and
nobody would send me any threatening letters.

Some other broadcasters have similar arangements, and as with the
online-only services like Netflix and Disney etc, you don't even need
to pay their subscriptions all the time, but can join just for one
month to watch a particular programme or series and then cancel until
the next thing that interests you comes along.

I'm old enough to remember when television was on small screens in
black and white and didn't have a pause control, or even a channel
selector because there wasn't anything else to select. The BBC was the
only source of television programmes and if you wanted to watch
something you had to be in when it was on, because there was no way of
recording anything to watch later. Even the broadcasters didn't have
any means of recording their own material, so it either had to be made
on film or performed live - performed twice a day sometimes as if it
were in the theatre. Nearly everything about the way we can watch TV
today can be regarded as progress - except the anachronistic way we
are still expected to pay for the BBC.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70765

On 08/10/2026 09:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> What's so terrible about adverts anyway?


Partly because of them, I never listen to commercial radio and only 
rarely watch ITV (about one programme a week at the moment), can't 
remember the last time I watched CH4.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70768

On 08/10/2026 09:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 23:36:03 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 07/10/2026 16:06, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> It already works for the other broadcasters, so why not?
>>
>>
>> And just look what you end up on the channels dependent on adverts or
>> subscriptions.
>>
>> And even worse with radio.
>
> I end up with a system where I can *choose* what I think is worth
> paying for, and don't have to pay for what I don't want,  without
> being threatened with fines or prison if my choice doesn't include
> what somebody else thinks I should have.
>
The USP of the BBC is that despite the complaints here, most of the 
world is of the opinion that their news is the most balanced in the 
World, which is why so many Governments jam the transmissions and ban 
their reporters.

I have  also noticed over the years that most of those complaining only 
complain about the stories that they do not agree with. Lefties complain 
about stories that explain the stance of the right wing and vice versa. 
I have also heard a lot of complaints from The Great Unwashed about 
stories that openly criticise or support Government policy, no matter 
who is "in charge". As both sides are whinging, I assume the coverage is 
balanced.

It is also free to make experimental programmes and programmes for 
special interest groups that subscription stations could not afford to 
take the risk of making. For example, would a channel supported only by 
subscription or advertising make in depth shows about how the people in 
Gaza or other conflict zones have been mistreated? None of the existing 
ones do.

> What's so terrible about adverts anyway? ITV, for example, has been
> supported in this way since 1955 and seems to have survived quite
> well. It now has many years worth of stored material that anyone with
> an internet connection can watch totally free with adverts, or for a
> small subscription without them.
>
If you accept adverts, then you need to comply with the wishes of the 
advertisers if you want to keep the money rolling in. This is why we 
have so many channels full of stuff aimed at the lowest common audience 
denominator. Reality shows are cheap to make and popular with the less 
intelligent. So are quiz shows with easy questions. The advertisers pay 
per viewer...

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70779

In article <nipsu2Fnm15U1@mid.individual.net>,
   John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> The USP of the BBC is that despite the complaints here, most of the
> world is of the opinion that their news is the most balanced in
> the World, 

If you tried some on-line news services you would learn just how much
the BBC bends and hides the news. However, if you don't regularly
look elsewhere you will be unaware and think they're honest. Main
stream news is captured by activists and is corrupt.

Bob.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast

csiph-web