> From: Paul Berkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 2/26/01 9:34 AM, "Christian M. M. Brady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/01 11:25 AM, "Peter Boisseau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> From: "Christian M. M. Brady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/26/01 9:09 AM, "Gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Again, pa shaw! Pa shaw to the paranoiacs who think that some white van
>>>>> outside is "reading the flux" on their monitors.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't know about reading the flux, but in England there are white
>>>> vans that go around "reading" whether or not you have a TV in your house
>>>> (via signals of some sort I assume) and, if you have not paid your TV
>>>> license, they will then send you a fine.
>>>
>>> You're referring to those nice people who work out of Bristol called TV
>>> Licensing. And yes, they can read your TV - tell you which channel you're
>>> watching, the whole nine yards - while parked outside in a van. The BBC
>>> (British Broadcasting Corporation) doesn't carry advertising, but is funded
>>> via a license fee, which all TV owners have to pay. This, and the method of
>>> detection, has been standard in the UK since time forgot.
>>
>> And seemed mildly unfair to a struggling graduate student just trying to get
>> a bit of telly! ;-) The license seemed cheaper than the fine in the end...
>> ;>)
>>
> I lived in Britain for 20 years. I would _gladly_ go back to paying the
> license fee (it was about £60 or so a year when I left 7 years ago) to get
> the quality of BBC TV and radio - all without ads. The BBC one of the two
> things I miss most about leaving England. The 60-odd channels I get instead
> are a wasteland compared to the two BBC channels. Even the ads on the 2
> (probably more now) UK commercial channels had to be very witty and
> entertaining to hold on to the audience, who could always flip over to BBC -
> sometimes they were better than the programmes.
>
> --
> Paul Berkowitz
"The 60-odd channels I get instead are a wasteland compared to the
two BBC channels"
Well... My heart want's to agree with the sentiment and at one time I'd have
said you were definitely right, but I'm not so sure anymore. I fear UK TV
standards are gently slipping. Either that or I'm getting older, (or both!)
I don't see the quality on Brit TV that I used to. Too little programme
funding and too much competition are taking their toll. The two BBC channels
that Paul remembers are supplemented by ITV and Ch4 and, more recently Ch5.
These three channels carry commercials and along with the two BBC channels,
are commonly considered 'Free to Air' (yes, even though you pay a license
fee!) After the terrestrial 'Big Five' there's now a whole raft of cable and
satellite channels. Some free, some subscription or pay on demand. I'd
imagine these carry pretty much the same mixture of daytime dross,
'fillers', sport, chat, community services, niche programming etc, that you
have at home, and, just like your 'wasteland of channels', if you spread
programming that thinly there's never going to be enough talent or money to
go round.
Which is not to say that the BBC has lost it's shine. It broadcasts some
fine programming, especially in Arts and Documentary, and BBC radio, (4
channels) is excellent, (in my opinion, unsurpassable). Yet when it comes to
drama; shows like ER, NYPD, West Wing, etc. I haven't seen the BBC match
this standard of output in a while.
Pete.
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
