Even the once undeniable lack of bias has been exploded by the Gilligan affair. .
What gives you that idea. AFAIK Lord Hutton has yet to issue his report. At worst the Gilligan affair was a mistake on air by one journalist.
Indeed - I do hope Huddy hasn't been basing his views on press coverage of the Hutton Enquiry... Almost universally this has been biased one way or the other. Ironically most broadcast and press reviewers think the BBC reported Hutton more accurately than almost any other outlet...
I think we'll have to wait for Hutton to report before any conclusions should be jumped to.
It is ridiculous to accuse Radio 4 of bias simply because of the Hutton Enquiry and Andrew Gilligan. I can tell you that an awful lot of Tories, right wingers, left wingers, upper classes and lower classes listen to radio 4 because it is a great radio station. They find no problem with it, and neither do the 10 million or so listeners.
Considering what you pay for the license fee it is a reasonable sum of money!
But whether EVERYONE gets value for money is a slightly different question.
For people who have not got access to digital services I feel paying the full license fee for BBC1, BBC2 and BBC Radio 1,2,3,4,5 and some local stations isnt value for money anymore.
But when you add BBC 1 Xtra, BBC 5 Live extra, BBC6, BBC7, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News 24 and also Cbeebies and CBBC it makes a much better 'package'
This package, on the outside looking in, does infact look quite good value but isnt as enticing as it may first look.
Firstly the CBBC and Cbeebies channels only broadcast until 7pm at night (i think at least one of them should provide a 7-12 nightly service providing music, or extended TOTP coverage or something similar to UK Play where Pete Tong, Dave Peace, Judge Jules, played some sets etc) You may argue that there are loads of tv stations already providing that service - but what the hell - that usually doesnt stop the BBC nibbling away at other stations viewing figures.
BBC3 and BBC4 are both a waste of time and only broadcast a portion of the day from 7pm until late.
As BBC2 is currently in an identity crisis - where it doesnt know whether it's trying to provide youth entertainment or high brow programmes - BBC3 and BBC4 are splitting the BBC2 quandry and thus creating another two channels to satisfy this identity problem.
If BBC2 was turned into BBC3 and BBC 4 turned into BBC 3 I would be happy but to create these two EXTRA channels is a total waste of money and excessive.
Whilst im talking about EXTRA channels - here in Wales there is also another channel called BBC 2W where (just like BBC3) they show 'new' productions which eventually get shown on BBC1 or BBC2.
Surely this type of creating new digital only channels and showing new shows on them only alienate the analogue viewer and creates a hierachy where poorer families are being discriminated against even though they are paying the same amount of license fee.
I feel BBCi is an invaluable resource and seems to be well run and worth the money.
Surely this type of creating new digital only channels and showing new shows on them only alienate the analogue viewer and creates a hierachy where poorer families are being discriminated against even though they are paying the same amount of license fee.
I agree - these people should be able to pay a reduced license fee until the analogue switch-off happens.
How is the BBC/government going to help those people who may not be able to afford a new television after the switch-off? Will they subsidise them? How will it happen?
Thanks Katherine! Im glad someone agrees with that most basic of statements!
The poor people of Britain are inadvertantly subsidising the (alledeged) richer people of Britain whom have bought into the digital revolution!
There should be a reduction for people who have not gone digital or at least an incentive for them to do so!
Surely this type of creating new digital only channels and showing new shows on them only alienate the analogue viewer and creates a hierachy where poorer families are being discriminated against even though they are paying the same amount of license fee.
I agree - these people should be able to pay a reduced license fee until the analogue switch-off happens.
How is the BBC/government going to help those people who may not be able to afford a new television after the switch-off? Will they subsidise them? How will it happen?
The BBC wanted a digital licence fee but the Government rejected the idea because it would slow the take-up of digital TV.
By the time we get near analogue switch-off, a digital TV adaptor should only cost around £20-30. It's already possible to get a basic one for £40, although that's a special offer.
While you're at it you ars*hole , why don't you privatise the railways as well , I'm sure that would work superbly.
Is there really any need for resorting to that ? He's as entitled to his opinion as you are, and doesn't deserved to be abused in such a manner for expressing it.
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. His pathetic private sector arguments are an exact mirror of those the tory party used when Maggie ( the original mad cow ) was in power. I would not swap the BBC for any commercial station currently available. You only have to look at the way that Rev. Blair swung an exclusive interview for the SUN ( shines out of every idiot's ars*hole ) with George Bush to realise the threat that sky represents. But I wouldn't expect him to understand that either.
P.S. he did deserve it.
Another problem I have with this, is that almost invariably, the reliability of television picture from analogue television is almost bulletproof. Our family have had very little problem with analogue pictures, but digital pictures freeze quite often, especially in very hot and humid weather, where this heat can slightly warp the surface of the dish, and the LNB is very easily disturbable. I think to some extent picture freezing is prevalent on digital terrestrial too. I fail to understand why the more reliable signals are being done away with. If it was up to me, I'd retain analogue transmission as an option alongside digital television.
I know my grandparents have said on a couple of occasions that they'd never use any of the new channels digital provides because the existing five channels meet their needs entirely. Is this digital conversion just progress for the sake of it, or is there an actual genuine need to convert to digital television?
Thanks Katherine! Im glad someone agrees with that most basic of statements!
The poor people of Britain are inadvertantly subsidising the (alledeged) richer people of Britain whom have bought into the digital revolution!
There should be a reduction for people who have not gone digital or at least an incentive for them to do so!
You're ignoring the fact that digital is not better quality than analogue - it can't be by virtue of the fact that each channel has far less bandwidth to play with - even allowing for compression. A quick glance at any sports programme with a lot of lateral movement will show that up - and s4c's rugby feeds are particularly dire on digital - I don't know what they are at present but they were down at 2Mb/s some time back. 6-8 Mb/s is normally deemed acceptable for this sort of programme due to the high refresh rate between frames.
Sorry , but I like my analogue, the only reason we're going digital is - you've guessed it - money. Get wise.
Another problem I have with this, is that almost invariably, the reliability of television picture from analogue television is almost bulletproof. Our family have had very little problem with analogue pictures, but digital pictures freeze quite often, especially in very hot and humid weather, where this heat can slightly warp the surface of the dish, and the LNB is very easily disturbable. I think to some extent picture freezing is prevalent on digital terrestrial too. I fail to understand why the more reliable signals are being done away with. If it was up to me, I'd retain analogue transmission as an option alongside digital television.
I know my grandparents have said on a couple of occasions that they'd never use any of the new channels digital provides because the existing five channels meet their needs entirely. Is this digital conversion just progress for the sake of it, or is there an actual genuine need to convert to digital television?
Yes, the government's overwhelming desire for hard cash !
Thanks Katherine! Im glad someone agrees with that most basic of statements!
The poor people of Britain are inadvertantly subsidising the (alledeged) richer people of Britain whom have bought into the digital revolution!
There should be a reduction for people who have not gone digital or at least an incentive for them to do so!
You're ignoring the fact that digital is not better quality than analogue - it can't be by virtue of the fact that each channel has far less bandwidth to play with - even allowing for compression. A quick glance at any sports programme with a lot of lateral movement will show that up - and s4c's rugby feeds are particularly dire on digital - I don't know what they are at present but they were down at 2Mb/s some time back. 6-8 Mb/s is normally deemed acceptable for this sort of programme due to the high refresh rate between frames.
Sorry , but I like my analogue, the only reason we're going digital is - you've guessed it - money. Get wise.
But surely by getting Microsoft onboard - they could utilise Windows Media 9 Codecs to produce a much better quality picture than the current Mpeg2 in use.
Digital can be quality and much better than analogue pictures if equipment and procedures are improved!
