poor selection of channels on Freeview.

[nick grayling]

Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes that it
endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly say that
on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
world, CNN will be there.
No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

[Moldy]

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes that it
endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly say that
on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
world, CNN will be there.
No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

You get what you pay for

You knew exactly what channels you would get before you bought the
box/arial...

You can hardly complain about it now...

[nick grayling]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:17:19 +0000, Moldy

Post by Moldy

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes that it
endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly say that
on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
world, CNN will be there.
No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

You get what you pay for
You knew exactly what channels you would get before you bought the
box/arial...
You can hardly complain about it now...
--

Not so much complaining as commenting.
So, what is 'free' has to be rubbish? Interesting but depressing
opinion.
And if it is 'free' who is paying for it? Father Christmas, or the
Licence payer?
Freeview is 'free' like the National health service is 'free' - and
the same arguments used to be applied - yeah the Health service is
crap, but its free so what else do you expect - you should just be
grateful and shut-up! Thank God we have got beyond that!

[Stuart]

Post by nick grayling
And if it is 'free' who is paying for it? Father Christmas, or the
Licence payer?
Freeview is 'free' like the National health service is 'free' - and
the same arguments used to be applied - yeah the Health service is
crap, but its free so what else do you expect - you should just be
grateful and shut-up! Thank God we have got beyond that!

Well said. We don't get the public service stuff we have already paid for
and were promised when the licences were given.

Instead we get price-up/bid-down TV. DTTV - a valued public resource sold
out to scammers.

[Martin Angove]

Post by Stuart

Post by nick grayling
And if it is 'free' who is paying for it? Father Christmas, or the
Licence payer?
Freeview is 'free' like the National health service is 'free' - and
the same arguments used to be applied - yeah the Health service is
crap, but its free so what else do you expect - you should just be
grateful and shut-up! Thank God we have got beyond that!

Well said. We don't get the public service stuff we have already paid for
and were promised when the licences were given.
Instead we get price-up/bid-down TV. DTTV - a valued public resource sold
out to scammers.

Oh come on! Only three of the six multiplexes have any kind of "public
service" element to their ownership - and IFAIAC the pair run by the BBC
does carry a reasonable amount of decent programming. Not constantly,
not exclusively, but not bad, and it is only this which is paid for by
the licence fee. Everything else is paid for by advertising and
sponsorship.

Market forces methinks.

If you can persuade a large number of DTT viewers to stop watching the
channels you despise then perhaps something else will be provided
instead...

Hwyl!

M.

[Ted Richardson]

Post by Martin Angove
Oh come on! Only three of the six multiplexes have any kind of "public
service" element to their ownership - and IFAIAC the pair run by the BBC
does carry a reasonable amount of decent programming. Not constantly,
not exclusively, but not bad, and it is only this which is paid for by
the licence fee. Everything else is paid for by advertising and
sponsorship.

Was surprised to read in "Broadcast" that Price.Drop.TV is one of the
more popular "others" on DTT. It's using some of C4's spare gifted
capacity on mux-2 the "sub-licence" grant being co-signed by the ITC.

Can't see what sort of public service remit Prce.Drop and Bid.Up could
have, other than to sell Government commodities that no-one else is
going to want or be able to afford, such as university places, shares in
railway franchises, or copies of the EU constitution.

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:56:18 GMT, ***@lineop.com (nick grayling)
wrote:

| Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
| really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
| altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
| Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
| The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes that it
| endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
| Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly say that
| on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
| world, CNN will be there.
| No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
| It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

You forgot to mention BBC News24, with 24hr and 5 day weather forcasts
IMO those are worth the cost.

[Stuart]

Post by Dave Fawthrop
You forgot to mention BBC News24

Which will only continue if they can convince an unfriendly government
News24 is distinctly different from Sky News.

Apparently trying to be unbiased doesn't count - so they are trying a new
set instead :(

[Lee@DVDDebate]

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother.

Who exactly wouldn't you advise to bother? Would you also advise the
same person not to bother with analogue TV either?

Post by nick grayling
The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes that it
endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly say that
on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
world, CNN will be there.
No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

Er..it's free, what do you expect? You seem to be confusing it with some
sort of pay-tv system which it isn't and never will be.

Lee.

[Bluestars]

Post by ***@DVDDebate
Er..it's free, what do you expect?

No its not.

You need to buy a TV licence to be entitled to view.

IMO its worth the cost of the box for the extra BBC channels.

Roger

[Lee@DVDDebate]

Post by Bluestars

Post by ***@DVDDebate
Er..it's free, what do you expect?

No its not.
You need to buy a TV licence to be entitled to view.

Someone tried that line in court and it didn't hold up there either, so
in the eyes of UK law it's free.

Lee.

[Good cop bad cop]

"***@DVDDebate" <***@nospaamdvddebate.com> wrote in message news:fdozb.2270922$***@news.easynews.com...
It's free and it's crap!
Maybe freeview is a bad idea?
Although sky isn't free and that's mostly crap.

[Bluestars]

Post by ***@DVDDebate

Post by Bluestars
You need to buy a TV licence to be entitled to view.

Someone tried that line in court and it didn't hold up there either, so
in the eyes of UK law it's free.

Please explain in more detail.

Are you saying that a television licence is not required to receive uk
television programmes?

Roger

[Lee@DVDDebate]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:44:55 +0000 (UTC), "Bluestars"

Post by Bluestars

Post by ***@DVDDebate

Post by Bluestars
You need to buy a TV licence to be entitled to view.

Someone tried that line in court and it didn't hold up there either, so
in the eyes of UK law it's free.

Please explain in more detail.

My mistake; it was the Advertising Standards Authority not a court of
law.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/advertising/story/0,7492,933221,00.html

Lee.
--
Founder, DVD Debate
http://www.dvddebate.com
lee at dvddebate dot com

Is the owner of Hotpoint a Fridge Magnate?

[Bluestars]

Post by ***@DVDDebate
My mistake; it was the Advertising Standards Authority not a court of
law.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/advertising/story/0,7492,933221,00.html

Thanks for the link.

I think the ASA complaining viewers were being a bit pernickety since I
interpreted the brand or logo 'Freeview' as advertising puff differentiating the
product
from 'Pay to View' (Subscription services).

I never thought it could give any exemption from the Orwellian Wireless
Telegraphy Act 1949 with its all encompassing 'apparatus for the reception of
wireless telegraphy signals', Revised 1967 and 1998, requiring a licence for
reception of television signals from whatever source.

If I have any complaint about the 'Freeview' campaign it would be the implied
suggestion that there are 30 new television channels, which there are not,
rather than making clear how many of those 30 are radio channels and how many
are television.

The BBC has made DTT viable using licence payers money and in so doing has given
viewers more choice of quality channels. I agree with those who have bemoaned
the compromise in technical standards by cramming too many channels in the space
to satisfy the governments greed.

I would hope that if DTT sees an early end to analogue broadcasting the released
space would be used (by the BBC) for HDTV, but this looks extremely unlikely
with Treasury control.

The commercial channel response has been very disappointing IMO verging on sour
grapes. I assume they believe subscription plus advertising is the only way to
get back to the heady days of 'a licence to print money'.

As expressed previously I think the new BBC channels alone are well worth the
cost of the box which you can now get for around 50 pounds. Many people can
spend that amount on an evening out or on groceries without thinking twice, yet
they can make very heavy weather of spending it on something they will use every
day for some years.

Personally, I got excellent value from my licence fee by the BBC's development
of DTT and consider the cost of the box well worth BBC4 alone. I agree with
those posters calling for more specialist channels such as science/engineering,
if funds could be found, replacing the commercial offerings, that so far, add
nothing of quality.

Roger

[unknown]

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes that it
endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly say that
on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
world, CNN will be there.
No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

How can you slag off some of the channels that you DO get and then in
the next breath show disappointment that you DON'T get CNN? Surely BBC
News 24, ITV News and Sky News are all superior to CNN?

Why don't YOU put a few thousand pounds on the table and produce a
FREE film channel?

BBC produce the best television on the planet and it is available to
almost all via freeview. Some people don't know on which side their
bread is buttered!

[[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner)]

Post by unknown
How can you slag off some of the channels that you DO get and then in
the next breath show disappointment that you DON'T get CNN? Surely BBC
News 24, ITV News and Sky News are all superior to CNN?

Surely not. They are merely different.

[Stuart]

Post by [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner)

Post by unknown
How can you slag off some of the channels that you DO get and then in
the next breath show disappointment that you DON'T get CNN? Surely BBC
News 24, ITV News and Sky News are all superior to CNN?

Surely not. They are merely different.

Sky News superior to CNN? - interesting view. Or is it just me that thinks
CNN is the only major US News network that tries within the limitations of
ad/political pressure to be reasonably objective in its coverage - albeit
from a US standpoint.

I wish I could say the same of Sky/Fox News.

[Les Hellawell]

Post by Stuart

Post by [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner)

Post by unknown
How can you slag off some of the channels that you DO get and then in
the next breath show disappointment that you DON'T get CNN? Surely BBC
News 24, ITV News and Sky News are all superior to CNN?

Surely not. They are merely different.

Sky News superior to CNN? - interesting view. Or is it just me that thinks
CNN is the only major US News network that tries within the limitations of
ad/political pressure to be reasonably objective in its coverage - albeit
from a US standpoint.

Fatally flawed by over saturated advertising. It is just unwatchable except
when there is a serious item of "Breaking News" and they suspend ads.

[[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner)]

Post by Stuart

Post by [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner)

Post by unknown
How can you slag off some of the channels that you DO get and then in
the next breath show disappointment that you DON'T get CNN? Surely BBC
News 24, ITV News and Sky News are all superior to CNN?

Surely not. They are merely different.

Sky News superior to CNN? - interesting view. Or is it just me that thinks
CNN is the only major US News network that tries within the limitations of
ad/political pressure to be reasonably objective in its coverage - albeit
from a US standpoint.

Do you mean CNN or CNNi. And MSNBC is pretty good - albeit parochial.

Post by Stuart
I wish I could say the same of Sky/Fox News.

[Stuart]

Post by [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner)

Post by Stuart
Sky News superior to CNN? - interesting view. Or is it just me that thinks
CNN is the only major US News network that tries within the limitations of
ad/political pressure to be reasonably objective in its coverage - albeit
from a US standpoint.

Do you mean CNN or CNNi. And MSNBC is pretty good - albeit parochial.

CNN. Though my view may be influenced by keeping in touch thru the web
version. Invaluable to see the world thru American eyes. Gives some insights
as to why they do what they do.

And CNN is about as far as most yanks get to looking over the county line :(

[timco]

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes that it
endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly say that
on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
world, CNN will be there.
No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

All the channels you mention are not free, all digital platforms have to pay
to have them in a package. The digital platforms get their money back by
charging the punter that receives their service. You are not paying for the
service except for the licence fee. So why should licence fee money be used
to provide these channels? If I want American news I'll pop over to USA
today or to the Washington Post or something like that.
There are 3 UK based news channels Sky, BBC 24 and ITV you want more news
channels?

timco

[Phil]

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I

would

Post by nick grayling
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels

are ok,

Post by nick grayling
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and

BBC2.

Post by nick grayling
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes

that it

Post by nick grayling
endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly

say that

Post by nick grayling
on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
world, CNN will be there.
No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

I suspect the problem is advertising revenue. Shopping channels
apart, this is the only way to fund commercial channels since the
pay element was dropped, but it is hard to come by at present -
even the established channels are suffering, so new ones must
find it hard to get off the ground.

Many people who think BBC1/2 have gone too far in search of the
mass market will be happy with BBC4 content. It's purely a
matter of taste, but I think some of the original programming has
been outstanding. It may also be the only free channel now
showing foreign language films (at a reasonable hour).

BBC3 seems to be trying to catch the elusive youth market. This
is hard, since that market's tastes change so rapidly.

I agree about the repetition on UK History, though I don't think
it's quite so bad as you make out. Much of the material is old
enough to have been missed or forgotten, and still deserving of
viewing. The Great War series hadn't been shown for nearly 40
years.

I'd also put in a kind word for the day-time lifestyle channel
(19), even if most people can only watch at week-ends. ITV2 is
mostly for soap addicts, but occasionally produces some
worthwhile sport e.g. Tour de France or football, not to mention
the Rugby World Cup.

If or when the 7-day EPG comes in, many people will find that
useful.

Still think it's not worth it?

[Jim Lesurf]

Many people who think BBC1/2 have gone too far in search of the mass
market will be happy with BBC4 content. It's purely a matter of taste,
but I think some of the original programming has been outstanding. It
may also be the only free channel now showing foreign language films (at
a reasonable hour).

I've only had a freeview box for a couple of weeks, so any comment I make
now is only an initial reaction.

However I feel it was a worthwhile purchase which I am happy to have made
purely to get some of the 'extra' BBC services like BBC4tv, BBC7radio,
World Service, BBC News24, etc.

I agree about the repetition on UK History, though I don't think it's
quite so bad as you make out. Much of the material is old enough to
have been missed or forgotten, and still deserving of viewing. The
Great War series hadn't been shown for nearly 40 years.

Pleased to see 'What the Romans did for us" on UKHistory. However I was
dissapointed this was letterboxed into 4:3. I find UKHistory interesting
for the occasional 'dip in'. However I wish there was a Science and
Engineering channel even if it was combined with 'furry animals' programs.

Also, the DTTV images we get here are better than analogue. So programs
like the wildlife series (e.g. the Wild Down Under or whatever its called)
and Antiques Roadshow I find better to watch via widescreen digital than
via analogue.

Slainte,

Jim

[Sam Nelson]

Post by Jim Lesurf
I wish there was a Science and
Engineering channel

Given that there aren't enough competent S&E-oriented staff in TV's
media-studies-graduate-soaked programme-making arena these days to get
even a couple of hours a week of competent S&E-oriented programmes out,
how would anyone fill an entire channel? Wraparound rollover repeats of
Royal Institution lecture series?

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:30:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson)
wrote:

| In article <***@st-and.demon.co.uk>,
| Jim Lesurf <***@st-and.demon.co.uk> writes:
| > I wish there was a Science and
| > Engineering channel
|
| Given that there aren't enough competent S&E-oriented staff in TV's
| media-studies-graduate-soaked programme-making arena these days to get
| even a couple of hours a week of competent S&E-oriented programmes out,
| how would anyone fill an entire channel? Wraparound rollover repeats of
| Royal Institution lecture series?

All too true :-(
I keep thinking about setting up an email system for reporting the
scientific howlers I hear on the TV every day. Surprisingly BBC Radio 4
is much more scientifically literate, so all is not lost.

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:30:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson)
wrote:

|
| Given that there aren't enough competent S&E-oriented staff in TV's
| media-studies-graduate-soaked programme-making arena these days to get
| even a couple of hours a week of competent S&E-oriented programmes out,
| how would anyone fill an entire channel? Wraparound rollover repeats of
| Royal Institution lecture series?

The Americans have the same problem, and are *planning* a Scientific
Channel see www.csntv.org. See also Scientific American, Vol 289, Number
5, Nov 2003, p25. Skepti, Candle in the dark.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Sam Nelson

Post by Jim Lesurf
I wish there was a Science and
Engineering channel

Given that there aren't enough competent S&E-oriented staff in TV's
media-studies-graduate-soaked programme-making arena these days to get
even a couple of hours a week of competent S&E-oriented programmes out,

Well said that man ! Couldn't have put it better myself.

Ironic really, as digital broadcasting itself is the result of advanced 'cutting edge'
communication science and engineering,

[Trevor Coleman]

I saw a TV travel programme a few months ago. A very attractive female
bikini clad presenter was standing in the sea at a Florida beach. She said
that the water was a lovely, warm eighty degrees centigrade.

It encapsulated what is wrong with "factual" TV. It looked wonderful and
sounded very authoritative, but the information was plainly stupid to anyone
with a minimal education - yet - and this is the worrying bit - I bet not
one person in the film crew, including the producer- or the editor or anyone
else noticed the mistake. "Facts", numbers and statistics are thrown in so
that the presenter looks knowledgeable. No-one really knows or cares if any
of it is true or not.

One of my interests is flying. I've seen endless news programmes where an
aircraft is mentioned. The make and type of aircraft involved in, say, an
attack in Iraq is mentioned - along with a picture of an entirely different
aircraft. It often happens with anything technical. They simply don't know
what they are talking about. The problem is not that they are wrong - it
doesn't fundamentally change the story. The problem is not even that the
media types in control do not see it as important to get technical facts
correct. The problem is that if they present "facts" that are so obviously
wrong, can we believe anything that they present? Is it all show and no
content?

Yes, the Horizon type of programme has much less content than in the past,
but since it is obvious that the budget goes on graphics now and not
research, the additional content would probably be wrong anyway.

You think that anyone in the media these days could make the sorts of
programmes that used to be made? I doubt it. I doubt if anyone in today's
media even thinks that getting the facts right is important. As long as it
sounds good and looks good - who cares!

TC

Post by Sam Nelson

Post by Jim Lesurf
I wish there was a Science and
Engineering channel

Given that there aren't enough competent S&E-oriented staff in TV's
media-studies-graduate-soaked programme-making arena these days to get
even a couple of hours a week of competent S&E-oriented programmes out,
how would anyone fill an entire channel? Wraparound rollover repeats of
Royal Institution lecture series?
--
SAm.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Trevor Coleman
I saw a TV travel programme a few months ago. A very attractive female
bikini clad presenter was standing in the sea at a Florida beach. She
said that the water was a lovely, warm eighty degrees centigrade.

Ouch! Glad I don't go swimming! :-)

Post by Trevor Coleman
It encapsulated what is wrong with "factual" TV. It looked wonderful and
sounded very authoritative, but the information was plainly stupid to
anyone with a minimal education - yet - and this is the worrying bit -
I bet not one person in the film crew, including the producer- or the
editor or anyone else noticed the mistake.

This isn't just a matter of 'facts'. It seems to extend to a lack of any
real awareness of what they are saying. Since we're wandering off topic I
can risk mentioning two recent examples.

1) Recent item on BBC R4 (i.e. radio not TV) where guest said that "95% of
children are murdered by their parents". No sign of any qualifier anywhere
in the interview about this being limited to those children who had been
murdered.

2) Recent item on C4 TV news. Headline statement from newsperson was that
HRT was being 'Banned' for use as a treatement for Osteoporosis. Then, in
the interview it came out that single-component HRT increased the risk of
some cancers *over 10 years of treatment* from 1% to 1.5%. No 'Ban' at all,
just a suggestion that people discuss the matter with their GP. But, hey,
why spoil a dramatic headline?

Post by Trevor Coleman
Yes, the Horizon type of programme has much less content than in the
past, but since it is obvious that the budget goes on graphics now and
not research, the additional content would probably be wrong anyway.

I'm afraid I find some of the clever visual effects so distracting that I
switch off the program at times. There is a limit to how many times I want
to see abrupt changes of playback speed and/or excessive contrast and
colour to 'jazz up' presentation.

Despite the above, I would suspect that there is a reasonable 'back
catalogue' of older Horizon progs, Equinox progs, Bristol Unit progs, etc,
etc, that could be mined. Shame they don't make them like this any more,
though. Mind you, I'd enjoy seeing "The Micro Show" again. ;->

Slainte,

Jim

[Ross Lockley]

Post by Jim Lesurf
This isn't just a matter of 'facts'. It seems to extend to a lack of any
real awareness of what they are saying. Since we're wandering off topic I
can risk mentioning two recent examples.
1) Recent item on BBC R4 (i.e. radio not TV) where guest said that "95% of
children are murdered by their parents".

I was wondering why the school I work at was quieter than normal. And
there was me thinking the kids were off with winter colds :-)
--
Ross Lockley
Galashiels

www.analoguesat.co.uk

www.geocities.com/digitalsatuk

"Sender" and "From" addresses are spam trapped.
Please ensure you use my "Reply To" address if you want to contact me.

[JPG]

Post by Jim Lesurf
However I wish there was a Science and
Engineering channel even if it was combined with 'furry animals' programs.

As a complete counterpoint to science it does surprise me that the crystal
cathedral type of christianity complete with buffon-haired preacher hasn't
appeared on DTTV - not that I would want any of that hypocritical crap.

JPG - proud to be an atheist.

Post by Jim Lesurf
Slainte,
Jim

--

"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by Homo
Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and
Ruler of the Universes, wants the saccharine
adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded
by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not
receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion,
without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has
gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least
productive industries in history."

-- Robert Heinlein

[Steve]

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.

BBC3 tends to show programs before going on mainstream, I have never seen a
program on BBC4 that has been on the BBC1/2 formerly, can you name one?

[Stuart]

Post by Steve

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.

BBC3 tends to show programs before going on mainstream, I have never seen a
program on BBC4 that has been on the BBC1/2 formerly, can you name one?

Professional Foul, Copenhagen, The Conspiracy together with every other
play of significance. Put it the other way - has there ever been a play
commissioned for BBC4?

And 'Timeshift' is usually of programmes that pre-date BBC4. Not
complaining - these gems of the past are usually better than the stuff
created today.

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:01:56 +0000, Steve <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:

| ***@lineop.com (nick grayling) wrote in news:3fcdea41.5467919
| @news.ntlworld.com:
|
| > Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
| > really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
| > altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
| > Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
|
| BBC3 tends to show programs before going on mainstream, I have never seen a
| program on BBC4 that has been on the BBC1/2 formerly, can you name one?

The National Trust, Tyntesfield?
I watched and it was IMO good as are the rest of the sieries.

Dave F

[Les Hellawell]

Post by Steve

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.

BBC3 tends to show programs before going on mainstream, I have never seen a
program on BBC4 that has been on the BBC1/2 formerly, can you name one?

The St. Andrews day concert from Scotland on Saturday.

There has also been other music events lately that thus far have
only been seen on BBC4.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Les Hellawell

Post by Steve

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.

BBC3 tends to show programs before going on mainstream, I have never
seen

a

Post by Steve
program on BBC4 that has been on the BBC1/2 formerly, can you name one?

The St. Andrews day concert from Scotland on Saturday.
There has also been other music events lately that thus far have only
been seen on BBC4.

I was going to mention some of the music programs I've seen on BBC4tv. Were
not some of the 'Proms' also broadcast on BBC4tv? Hope so, as I'm looking
forwards to these next year... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

[Alan Pemberton]

Post by Jim Lesurf
I was going to mention some of the music programs I've seen on BBC4tv. Were
not some of the 'Proms' also broadcast on BBC4tv? Hope so, as I'm looking
forwards to these next year... :-)

The majority of the televised Proms were on BBC4. But the fact remains
that it shows the type of programme that BBC2 was set up for in the
nineteen-sixties. A proper public service broadcaster would have left
them there and set up a seedy digital channel for all the cheap
lifestyle crap instead of the other way around.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Alan Pemberton

Post by Jim Lesurf
I was going to mention some of the music programs I've seen on
BBC4tv. Were not some of the 'Proms' also broadcast on BBC4tv? Hope
so, as I'm looking forwards to these next year... :-)

The majority of the televised Proms were on BBC4. But the fact remains
that it shows the type of programme that BBC2 was set up for in the
nineteen-sixties. A proper public service broadcaster would have left
them there and set up a seedy digital channel for all the cheap
lifestyle crap instead of the other way around.

Quite ! I was amused by recent reports of the proposed ITV-3.
It was suggested that it could be ITV's version of BBC 4.
Well, C4 twenty years ago (when it was financed by ITV) was
ITV's version of the then BBC 2. Now of course much of C4's
programming is downmarket crap, that competes with all the
other junk on BBC 1 , 2, and ITV. BBC 1 is turning into ITV
(promos instead of ads). The only 'terrestrial' mainstream channel
trying to pull themselves upmarket is C5, though it's slow progress.

Still maybe all the top brass from BBC, ITV, C4, C5 would like to come
and stand in my local Blockbuster Video store at 6pm on a Saturday night.
I've had to queue for over 20 minutes in there to rent a DVD for the night.
Maybe that would give them food for thought ?

[Ted Richardson]

Mark Carver wrote :-

Post by Mark Carver
Quite ! I was amused by recent reports of the proposed ITV-3.
It was suggested that it could be ITV's version of BBC 4.

According to press reports ITV-3 is going to be a re-brand of Granada
Plus, hence with BSkyB involvment, as its a GSkyB channel. Likewise
ITV-Kids is proposed to be a joint venture with an existing cildrens
channel provider.

Rgds/Ted

[Mark Carver]

Post by Ted Richardson
Mark Carver wrote :-

Post by Mark Carver
Quite ! I was amused by recent reports of the proposed ITV-3.
It was suggested that it could be ITV's version of BBC 4.

According to press reports ITV-3 is going to be a re-brand of Granada
Plus, hence with BSkyB involvment, as its a GSkyB channel. Likewise
ITV-Kids is proposed to be a joint venture with an existing cildrens
channel provider.

Yes, that's another idea. The 'upmarket ITV' idea was mentioned here:-
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds12499.html

[Java Jive]

Yes, BBC2 is crap these days. We get the unfunny sitcoms, moronic
lifestyle shit, drama soaps, inappropriate sports, etc, that we've spent our
lives trying to avoid on other channels.

The following material has been on BBC2 between 1700 and midnight over the
last week or so: Some Mothers Do Have 'Em, Flog It!, As Time Goes By,
Delia's How To Cook, Escape To The Country, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Fresh
Prince Of Bel Air, Boxing, Weakest Link, What Not To Wear, Can't Take It
With You, As Time Goes By, three gardening programs in a row, X Files. And
if you think that's bad, take a look at the stuff in the afternoon. I would
guess that little or none of this material meets the original remit for BBC2
when the channel's rights to its broadcasting bandwith were originally
granted.

I suppose we should be grateful that we've still got programs like Horizon
and Timewatch, but even these aren't as good as they used to be. In
particular, the science content of Horizon has been dumbed down to such
neglible levels that it's a mere shadow of it's former self (and btw I wish
they would bring back its original rather haunting theme tune, and the
beautiful Carmina Burana theme for TW)

I'm sorry if I sound like an old nostalgia-isn't what-it-used to-be, but
BBC2 really did used to be really, really better.

It bought us: The original B&W Forsyte Saga, first class dramatisations of
many of the Hardy novels, Sartre's 'The Roads To Freedom', Kenneth Clark's
'Civilisation', Bronovsky's 'The Ascent Of Man', Galbraith's 'The Age Of
Uncertainty', all the Attenborough wildlife series (why is Charlotte
Uhlenbroecke on BBC1?), Ski Sunday in the days when it actually showed
breathtaking Alpine Ski racing and didn't waste time on ski holiday
lifestyle, French and German news broadcasts in their original langauges,
etc.

It's unfair to compare a lifetime of remembered highlights with one
presumably average week but just for the sake of argument, compare these two
lists, and you get a sense of why I'm having a rant.

It would be nice to have one channel, please just one, whose intellectual
content was guaranteed.
[snip]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Alan Pemberton
But the fact remains
that it shows the type of programme that BBC2 was set up for in the
nineteen-sixties. A proper public service broadcaster would have left
them there and set up a seedy digital channel for all the cheap
lifestyle crap instead of the other way around.

Quite ! I was amused by recent reports of the proposed ITV-3.
It was suggested that it could be ITV's version of BBC 4.
Well, C4 twenty years ago (when it was financed by ITV) was
ITV's version of the then BBC 2. Now of course much of C4's
programming is downmarket crap, that competes with all the
other junk on BBC 1 , 2, and ITV. BBC 1 is turning into ITV
(promos instead of ads). The only 'terrestrial' mainstream channel
trying to pull themselves upmarket is C5, though it's slow progress.

[mike.james]

Post by Java Jive
Yes, BBC2 is crap these days. We get the unfunny sitcoms, moronic
lifestyle shit, drama soaps, inappropriate sports, etc, that we've spent our
lives trying to avoid on other channels.
It would be nice to have one channel, please just one, whose intellectual
content was guaranteed.

Even on sat channels its difficult to find something that fits the bill.
Have a look at all the documentary channels and you find that they are
clogged with ghosts, paranormal, snake wrestling and sharks...
mikej

[Java Jive]

True! Mind, if they were all at the same time, I could be quite impressed
(:-)

Post by mike.james
Have a look at all the documentary channels and you find that they are
clogged with ghosts, paranormal, snake wrestling and sharks...

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Java Jive
I suppose we should be grateful that we've still got programs like
Horizon and Timewatch, but even these aren't as good as they used to
be. In particular, the science content of Horizon has been dumbed down
to such neglible levels that it's a mere shadow of it's former self

<sigh> I wish I felt able to disagree with you. :-<

Alas, I also tend to find that recent 'science' programs are poorer than
used to be the case some years ago. This isn't only a dilution of the
factual content. It also seems to be a change of focus onto just a few
topics - death of the dinosaurs, etc - that get covered repeatedly whilst
some other topics never get a mention.

Slainte,

Jim

[anonymouse]

Post by Mark Carver
Still maybe all the top brass from BBC, ITV, C4, C5 would like to come
and stand in my local Blockbuster Video store at 6pm on a Saturday night.
I've had to queue for over 20 minutes in there to rent a DVD for the night.
Maybe that would give them food for thought ?

Same here. It wasn't busy, though: there were just two people in front
of me in the queue. Blockbuster offer the worst service of any business
I deal with. They have a pathetic selection, unless you want to borrow
400 copies of the Matrix, and there will rarely be any copies left of
the few good films they do stock. To add insult to injury, they recently
increased their prices by 25%. I'd rather have a night in with bid-up.tv.

Rant over!

But seriously, my local Blockbuster is the size of a small supermarket,
but has a massively worse selection of films than the tiny "Primetime
Video" I used to belong to in central London. The staff are utterly
pathetic, frequently spending five minutes per customer simply to issue
a DVD. Don't even think about asking for anything you can't find.

Has anyone tried one of the mail-order DVD rental services (e.g.
http://guardian.movietrak.co.uk/ ). I'd really like to have access to a
decent film rental service again - maybe this is the answer?

Peter

[GM6TRS]

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes that it
endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly say that
on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
world, CNN will be there.
No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

Taken as a whole, most of the material on Freeview is crap - BUT

I knew that before I bought the digibox. It's a good investment though
for the rock-steady pictures on TV, with stereo sound, and the
mainstream BBC radio channels. Better value than DAB I'd suggest...

Martin

Moray

[Zordiac]

I would think that someone who gets freeview through by being swept
away with the promise of "up to 30 channels" would very dissapointed
with what's on offer.

And anyone who looks closely will find few channels of interest.

What I find really puzzling is how this is handled from the selling
point of view. I would have thought having a comedy and a film channel
(but please lord not like tcm) would make a massive difference to
sales, especially with Christmas coming up. The beeb have archives of
stuff ie minimal cost. I would have thought this would make much more
of an impact when advertising freeview.

[[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner)]

Post by Zordiac
I would think that someone who gets freeview through by being swept
away with the promise of "up to 30 channels" would very dissapointed
with what's on offer.

Ditto $ky. What an appalling dross/quality ratio.

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 14:33:51 +0000, ***@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon
Gardner) wrote:

| In article <***@posting.google.com>,
| ***@hotmail.com (Zordiac) wrote:
|
| > I would think that someone who gets freeview through by being swept
| > away with the promise of "up to 30 channels" would very dissapointed
| > with what's on offer.
|
| Ditto $ky. What an appalling dross/quality ratio.

The $ky dross/quality ratio is IMO worse than Freeview.
$ky has both more dross and more quality.

Dave F

[MarkM]

Post by nick grayling
Haven't has Freeview for long, (3 months) but Im not sure I would
really advise anybody else to bother. The extra BBC channels are ok,
altho mainly just seem to show repeats of what was on BBC1 and BBC2.
Im really suprised at how rubbishy the other channels are.
The UKHistory seems to have about a months worth of prorgammes that it
endlessly recyles. The shopping channels!! Nuff aid about them!
Not even CNN - that really suprises me because I can honestly say that
on every other cable and digital broadcast Ive seem anywhere in the
world, CNN will be there.
No film channel - not even that Turner one with the old movies.
It really amounts to a pretty pathetic line-up.

*Why on earth* would you want to have CNN on freeview? CNN has got to
be the last resort stuck-in-a-forign-country-hotel desparation
viewing. It's not even a good news channel. I don't understand....