LOGOFREETV News Release - "If you had your own TV channel, what would be on it?"
NO LOGO
"If you had your own TV channel, what would be on it?"
http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
Dan Brusca
Being honest, it would be porn and The West Wing.
--
Dan Brusca
www.notnet.co.uk
Webhosting that doesn't suck
Dom Robinson
> > "If you had your own TV channel, what would be on it?"
>
> Being honest, it would be porn and The West Wing.
>
--
Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 952 DVDs, 261 games, 33 videos, 68 cinema films, 69 CDs, laserdiscs & news
/* igby goes down, finding nemo, futurama, doctor who, old school, ghost recon
"Everyone's a winner!" - Newsgroup troll 'Time To Burn' on the lack of choice
foistered upon viewers by broadcasters who don't watch their own output
The Wizard
"NO LOGO" <e30...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d26591b7.03101...@posting.google.com...
> LOGOFREETV News Release
>
> "If you had your own TV channel, what would be on it?"
BRITISH programmes,No Ads,Dogs or red dots!
Failng that ANY that was just simply AD FREE and also free from the Sky
branding somewhere ;-)
> http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
Carl Waring
news:3f8f28c3$0$8767$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "NO LOGO" <e30...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d26591b7.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > LOGOFREETV News Release
> >
> > "If you had your own TV channel, what would be on it?"
>
> BRITISH programmes,No Ads,Dogs or red dots!
>
> Failng that ANY that was just simply AD FREE and also free from the Sky
> branding somewhere ;-)
>
--
C/-\R|_ \/\//-\R|I\IG
Carl Waring
>
> "If you had your own TV channel, what would be on it?"
>
>
> http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
As you've posted this to
uk.media.tv.sky
uk.media.tv.misc
and
uk.tech.tv.sky
you won't object if I report you for spamming. After all, it's really only
an ad for your site.
Dom Robinson
says...
> On 16 Oct 2003 04:52:28 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
>
> >http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
>
> Different day, same drivel.
>
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Quit being part of
the problem.
NO LOGO
If only the BBC would stop DOGging BBC TWO Learning Zone, BBC THREE,
and BBC FOUR, a lot of people would be very happy indeed.
;-)
With specific regard to the BBC, I think the position is clear: We
love the BBC and what many of it programmes can do, but hate the
on-screen logos and arrogant, plutocratic, dictatorial attitude.
http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=128
This statement by the BBC Chairman is quite interesting.
"Although I agree there are quite a lot of people who really don't
like that." He admits there is a problem but does nothing to resolve
it.
http://logofreetv.org/
http://logofreetv.org/content/ticker1/
Nick Humphries
>On 16 Oct 2003 04:52:28 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
>
>>http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
>
>Different day, same drivel.
I was also struck by the fact that this "News Release" contained no news.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Nick Humphries -- ni...@egyptus.co.uk -- http://www.egyptus.co.uk |
| ZX Spectrum stuff * Your Sinclair archive * Time-lapse weather MPEGs |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <d0nvovs3gq30d63ga...@4ax.com>, g3...@despammed.com
>says...
>> On 16 Oct 2003 04:52:28 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
>>
>> >http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
>>
>> Different day, same drivel.
>>
>You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Quit being part of
>the problem.
Ah yes, the old "you're either with me or against me" argument. The truth is
that most people just don't care, and a heck of a lot of arguments put forward
by LOGOFREETV and their followers have little or no merit.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:50:47 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <d0nvovs3gq30d63ga...@4ax.com>, g3...@despammed.com
> >says...
> >> On 16 Oct 2003 04:52:28 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
> >>
> >> Different day, same drivel.
> >>
> >You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Quit being part of
> >the problem.
>
> Ah yes, the old "you're either with me or against me" argument. The truth is
> that most people just don't care, and a heck of a lot of arguments put forward
> by LOGOFREETV and their followers have little or no merit.
>
>
already thrashed this out and we both agreed they should be made optional -
you might keep some of them and I'd turn them all off - so I don't know what
you're trying to achieve.
I could put forward here the reasons why I think people aren't as indifferent
as you think just because they don't all write to the TV companies, since
non-comment isn't the same as acceptance, but we've been down that road so
many times.
Dom Robinson
> >>
> >You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Quit being part of
> >the problem.
>
> ... then yes, I am part of the problem.
>
> I have written to the BBC several times, reminding them that many of
> their viewers do like "DOGs" on the digital transmissions and asking
> them not to give in to small, noisy pressure groups.
Have you got your name tattooed on your forehead just in case you forget?
carl
|| In article <rue0pv0ggn538jeu4...@4ax.com>,
|| g3...@despammed.com says...
||| On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:50:47 +0100, Dom Robinson
||| <murphyi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|||
||||| Different day, same drivel.
|||||
|||| You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Quit
|||| being part of the problem.
|||
||| If, by being in favour of on-screen logos, I am part of the problem
||| ... then yes, I am part of the problem.
|||
||| I have written to the BBC several times, reminding them that many of
||| their viewers do like "DOGs" on the digital transmissions and asking
||| them not to give in to small, noisy pressure groups.
||
|| Have you got your name tattooed on your forehead just in case you
|| forget? --
The good thing about having "TIT" on your forehead is that it reads the same
in the mirror...
--
Carl
Planet SF - http://www.planet-sf.co.uk
The portal to Alias, Angel, The Avengers, Buffy, Charmed,
Dark Angel, Doctor Who, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased),
Roswell, Sapphire & Steel, Smallfilms, The Wicker Man
"A year's supply of beer for sod all"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <7he0pvkua44fobn0o...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:50:47 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <d0nvovs3gq30d63ga...@4ax.com>, g3...@despammed.com
>> >says...
>> >> On 16 Oct 2003 04:52:28 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
>> >>
>> >> Different day, same drivel.
>> >>
>> >You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Quit being part of
>> >the problem.
>>
>> Ah yes, the old "you're either with me or against me" argument. The truth is
>> that most people just don't care, and a heck of a lot of arguments put forward
>> by LOGOFREETV and their followers have little or no merit.
>>
>>
>Nick, why do you keep lambasting my posts on this topic?
I'm trying to get you to moderate your approach.
>> >You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Quit being part of
>> >the problem.
This in-your-face approach will not earn you any new supporters. The language
you use to fight your cause is way out of perspective to the size and
importance of the actual problem. You're not doing yourself any favours,
especially when backed up by so many weak arguments.
NO LOGO
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:10:53 +0100, Walt Davidson <g3...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Oct 2003 04:52:28 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
> >
> >>http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
> >
> >Different day, same drivel.
>
> I was also struck by the fact that this "News Release" contained no news.
In fact the News Release was a direct response to BSKYB's Press
Release released the same day.
BSKYB asked the question. We received their Press Release. We
responded in kind.
NO LOGO
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:50:47 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <d0nvovs3gq30d63ga...@4ax.com>, g3...@despammed.com
> >says...
> >> On 16 Oct 2003 04:52:28 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
> >>
> >> Different day, same drivel.
> >>
> >You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Quit being part of
> >the problem.
>
> Ah yes, the old "you're either with me or against me" argument. The truth is
> that most people just don't care, and a heck of a lot of arguments put forward
> by LOGOFREETV and their followers have little or no merit.
Actually, LOGOFREETV has said we want to see FULL CHOICE FOR ALL
CONSUMERS.
Whether you like on-screen logos, promotions, or RED DOTSs, or hate
the same, the technical and protocol sollutions we have proposed
accomodate the needs of ALL viewers and broadcasters.
Futhermore, the desire for clutter free television is not confined to
just a "small noisy pressure group". Most people given the choice
would prefer self-determiniation over control and prescription by a
plutocracy.
Again, the principle is CHOICE FOR ALL CITIZENS.
It is BAD business practice and will eventually harm the long term
status of the BBC, PSB, Licence Fee, or commericial broadcasters to
offend or ignore the needs of segments of consumers. Accommodating
choice is good business practice and a matter of common sense.
Nick Humphries
Shame you said nothing new, though.
Whilst you're here - you report that the BBC is developing a V-DOG protocol so
that it can provide content advice onscreen through your set-top box. Why have
you seemingly automatically assumed that they won't use it for the channel ID
DOGs as well? If I was designing the system I'd have a default DOG displaying
and encourage set-top box manufacturers to have an option to switch off this
particular DOG by default should people choose. You could even combine it with
the red dot and turn two permanent DOGs into one optional one.
Now would be a good time to work with the BBC, rather than against it.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >Nick, why do you keep lambasting my posts on this topic?
>
> I'm trying to get you to moderate your approach.
Well, it won't make any difference so you may as well stop wasting your time.
> >> >You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Quit being part of
> >> >the problem.
>
> This in-your-face approach will not earn you any new supporters. The language
> you use to fight your cause is way out of perspective to the size and
> importance of the actual problem. You're not doing yourself any favours,
> especially when backed up by so many weak arguments.
That's your opinion and your entitled to it, but you're wrong.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >BSKYB asked the question. We received their Press Release. We
> >responded in kind.
>
> Shame you said nothing new, though.
>
> Whilst you're here - you report that the BBC is developing a V-DOG protocol so
> that it can provide content advice onscreen through your set-top box. Why have
> you seemingly automatically assumed that they won't use it for the channel ID
> DOGs as well? If I was designing the system I'd have a default DOG displaying
> and encourage set-top box manufacturers to have an option to switch off this
> particular DOG by default should people choose. You could even combine it with
> the red dot and turn two permanent DOGs into one optional one.
How many do you need? Make them opt-in, not opt-out!
> Now would be a good time to work with the BBC, rather than against it.
Fuck 'em. I pay my licence. I don't want any of this crap on my screen. Why
should I be forced to have onscreen logos? Get rid!
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <sjm0pv0fagkk75to5...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> >Nick, why do you keep lambasting my posts on this topic?
>>
>> I'm trying to get you to moderate your approach.
>
>Well, it won't make any difference so you may as well stop wasting your time.
Then expect to be "lambasted". If you don't want your statements or arguments
picked apart, don't make them.
The BBC are now developing the V-DOG protocol for a specific application. Now
is the time to be working with them so that it's also used for DOGs and red
dots. If you, LOGOFREETV et al hadn't ranted against the BBC so much in the
past they might have been very willing to listen to you now. As things are,
I'm not so sure they'd give you the time of day. Moderating your whole
approach could have paid bigger dividends to your cause.
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>> Now would be a good time to work with the BBC, rather than against it.
>
>Fuck 'em. I pay my licence. I don't want any of this crap on my screen. Why
>should I be forced to have onscreen logos? Get rid!
Hang on - here's a chance for you to get the BBC to do something that you've
been wanting them to do for years, and yet you prefer to insult them rather
than work with them so that you get what you want? And you wonder why I keep
picking apart your posts.
I've always said that the anti-DOG campaigners were their own worst enemy.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:12:52 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Now would be a good time to work with the BBC, rather than against it.
> >
> >Fuck 'em. I pay my licence. I don't want any of this crap on my screen. Why
> >should I be forced to have onscreen logos? Get rid!
>
> Hang on - here's a chance for you to get the BBC to do something that you've
> been wanting them to do for years, and yet you prefer to insult them rather
> than work with them so that you get what you want? And you wonder why I keep
> picking apart your posts.
How do I work with them, then, given how they'll stick their DOGs over the
screen regardless?
> I've always said that the anti-DOG campaigners were their own worst enemy.
There was no need for them in the first place.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:06:02 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <sjm0pv0fagkk75to5...@4ax.com>,
> >ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >> >Nick, why do you keep lambasting my posts on this topic?
> >>
> >> I'm trying to get you to moderate your approach.
> >
> >Well, it won't make any difference so you may as well stop wasting your time.
>
> Then expect to be "lambasted". If you don't want your statements or arguments
> picked apart, don't make them.
>
> The BBC are now developing the V-DOG protocol for a specific application. Now
> is the time to be working with them so that it's also used for DOGs and red
> dots. If you, LOGOFREETV et al hadn't ranted against the BBC so much in the
> past they might have been very willing to listen to you now. As things are,
> I'm not so sure they'd give you the time of day. Moderating your whole
> approach could have paid bigger dividends to your cause.
>
permanently turn off-able, AND made them opt-in? I doubt it.
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <j2q0pvseg6bj8daq6...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:06:02 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <sjm0pv0fagkk75to5...@4ax.com>,
>> >ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> >> >Nick, why do you keep lambasting my posts on this topic?
>> >>
>> >> I'm trying to get you to moderate your approach.
>> >
>> >Well, it won't make any difference so you may as well stop wasting your time.
>>
>> Then expect to be "lambasted". If you don't want your statements or arguments
>> picked apart, don't make them.
>>
>> The BBC are now developing the V-DOG protocol for a specific application. Now
>> is the time to be working with them so that it's also used for DOGs and red
>> dots. If you, LOGOFREETV et al hadn't ranted against the BBC so much in the
>> past they might have been very willing to listen to you now. As things are,
>> I'm not so sure they'd give you the time of day. Moderating your whole
>> approach could have paid bigger dividends to your cause.
>>
>You mean they'd have got rid of their DOGs and made them completely and
>permanently turn off-able, AND made them opt-in? I doubt it.
The article quoted by LOGOFREETV says that the protocol sends the info to the
set top box, and the set top box then decides how to display it - in other
words, there's the possibility that the set top box manufacturers could put in
an option setting making the appearance of these graphics optional.
Isn't this precisely how you want DOGs treated, given that they're going to
exist in some form?
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <mkq0pvcumlb1nkvii...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:12:52 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Now would be a good time to work with the BBC, rather than against it.
>> >
>> >Fuck 'em. I pay my licence. I don't want any of this crap on my screen. Why
>> >should I be forced to have onscreen logos? Get rid!
>>
>> Hang on - here's a chance for you to get the BBC to do something that you've
>> been wanting them to do for years, and yet you prefer to insult them rather
>> than work with them so that you get what you want? And you wonder why I keep
>> picking apart your posts.
>
>How do I work with them, then, given how they'll stick their DOGs over the
>screen regardless?
You'll have got rid of the "long-term" ones like the channel ID and red dot.
Or do you suddenly like those so that you won't get off your arse and do
something for yourself rather than ranting at the sidelines?
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >You mean they'd have got rid of their DOGs and made them completely and
> >permanently turn off-able, AND made them opt-in? I doubt it.
>
> The article quoted by LOGOFREETV says that the protocol sends the info to the
> set top box, and the set top box then decides how to display it - in other
> words, there's the possibility that the set top box manufacturers could put in
> an option setting making the appearance of these graphics optional.
There's a chance Jenna Jameson will knock on my front door tomorrow. About the
same odds as the above.
The broadcasters are too pig-ignorant and arrogant to let this happen.
> Isn't this precisely how you want DOGs treated, given that they're going to
> exist in some form?
Yes, but I wouldn't put money on it happening.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >How do I work with them, then, given how they'll stick their DOGs over the
> >screen regardless?
>
> You'll have got rid of the "long-term" ones like the channel ID and red dot.
> Or do you suddenly like those so that you won't get off your arse and do
> something for yourself rather than ranting at the sidelines?
>
optional.
Dave Atkinson
Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com> writes
>You mean they'd have got rid of their DOGs and made them completely and
>permanently turn off-able, AND made them opt-in? I doubt it.
But how do you know without investigating all avenues?
I was listening to Radio 2 yesterday afternoon as I travelled between
meetings and they had a good example:
People in Manchester see trees cut down in park.
Ask council why.
Council explains trees old and in danger of falling down.
People organise action group for replanting.
Council surprised at strength of feeling.
Council give people a voice in planning the park.
In this case the people were angry, but organised themselves and talked
to the council reasonably. This is always the best action.
My personal opinion is that I intensely dislike DOGs and have complained
directly to the channels I watch about them. If people wish to know the
channel they are watching, they can click a button on their remote. The
only time I have wished for a DOG is when tuning a TV into the
terrestrial signal, and you usually only have to wait a couple of
minutes to work out which channel you're on. Not a strong argument for
DOGs :-)
For those who don't like a thread, kill it. Personally, I think this is
on topic in the newsgroups it is currently being posted to.
If necessary, replace "nospam.please" when replying
--
Dave Atkinson E-Mail : news...@kynson.org.uk
WWW : http://www.kynson.org.uk
icq : 43284545
NO LOGO
In the meeting we had with the BBC earlier this year, the Head of
Technoogy and our Liason Officer said that they were refusing to do
this.
According to the Director General and Chairman, the BBC stated they
would advise us (and the Member of Parliament participating in this
case) of their developments in policy.
The lastest statement made by the BBC shows that they still do not
understand the V-DOG concept or how Digital Set Top Boxes work.
Consumer choice is something the BBC fails to understand. It's
corporate structure continues to reflect that of a quasi-state
imperial trading company and not a utility company focused on serving
consumers.
NO LOGO
> On 17 Oct 2003 14:25:34 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
>
> >Nick Humphries <ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote in message news:<qfe0pvc0gr7rfii71...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:10:53 +0100, Walt Davidson <g3...@despammed.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 16 Oct 2003 04:52:28 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=campaign_news_read&i=134
> >> >
> >> >Different day, same drivel.
> >>
> >> I was also struck by the fact that this "News Release" contained no news.
> >
> >
> >
> >In fact the News Release was a direct response to BSKYB's Press
> >Release released the same day.
> >
> >BSKYB asked the question. We received their Press Release. We
> >responded in kind.
>
> Shame you said nothing new, though.
>
> Whilst you're here - you report that the BBC is developing a V-DOG protocol so
> that it can provide content advice onscreen through your set-top box. Why have
> you seemingly automatically assumed that they won't use it for the channel ID
> DOGs as well? If I was designing the system I'd have a default DOG displaying
> and encourage set-top box manufacturers to have an option to switch off this
> particular DOG by default should people choose. You could even combine it with
> the red dot and turn two permanent DOGs into one optional one.
>
> Now would be a good time to work with the BBC, rather than against it.
As I stated, they said they would "keep us informed", we did ask, and
we have written papers on this subject and supplied the concepts to
them. We did attempt to start the first open-systems-industy
initative. The BBC is not showing any signs of understanding the
concepts or technology.
NO LOGO
> In article <nhv0pvklttgktdbt1...@4ax.com>,
> ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> > >How do I work with them, then, given how they'll stick their DOGs over the
> > >screen regardless?
> >
> > You'll have got rid of the "long-term" ones like the channel ID and red dot.
> > Or do you suddenly like those so that you won't get off your arse and do
> > something for yourself rather than ranting at the sidelines?
> >
> I wouldn't put money on them just dropping such things, or even making them
> optional.
I think history shows the BBC like most giant beaurocracies will be
late to address this problem as they have with many issues in the
past.
Going by past behaviour since 1922, the BBC will muddle and fudge
before eventually finding its way:
BBC THREE and BBC FOUR DOG-off / DOG-on is a relatively good example
of a BBC fudge. They inconsistantly don't know why they turn it on but
can't quite figure out why they should turn it off so they devise a
policy of "blinking". Their statements show they have an identity
crisis; they can not quite decide whether they are a PSB or satellite
commercial entity.
The problem is the BBC is an industry that is actually very bad at
creating, thinking, and understanding the public. The typical
broadcast executive spends less than one day a year encountering end
users. The fundamental question remains: Can any one show that DOGs
add one single viewer? No one can demonstrate this for BBC TWO, BBC
THREE, and BBC FOUR.
Pressure groups per se, and I dislike having to run one, usually occur
where a public body has discriminated against or "offended" a segment
of people. I have no doubt the on-screen logos are a minor but
significant irritation to many. The July statement by the BBC Chairman
concers.
Nick Humphries
>Nick Humphries <ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6tn0pvsacm5v66ph8...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Whilst you're here - you report that the BBC is developing a V-DOG protocol so
>> that it can provide content advice onscreen through your set-top box. Why have
>> you seemingly automatically assumed that they won't use it for the channel ID
>> DOGs as well? If I was designing the system I'd have a default DOG displaying
>> and encourage set-top box manufacturers to have an option to switch off this
>> particular DOG by default should people choose. You could even combine it with
>> the red dot and turn two permanent DOGs into one optional one.
>>
>> Now would be a good time to work with the BBC, rather than against it.
>
>As I stated, they said they would "keep us informed", we did ask, and
>we have written papers on this subject and supplied the concepts to
>them. We did attempt to start the first open-systems-industy
>initative. The BBC is not showing any signs of understanding the
>concepts or technology.
So the bottom line is, as they haven't contacted you over this, you won't
contact them?
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <nhv0pvklttgktdbt1...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> >How do I work with them, then, given how they'll stick their DOGs over the
>> >screen regardless?
>>
>> You'll have got rid of the "long-term" ones like the channel ID and red dot.
>> Or do you suddenly like those so that you won't get off your arse and do
>> something for yourself rather than ranting at the sidelines?
>>
>I wouldn't put money on them just dropping such things, or even making them
>optional.
Sounds like you're actually afraid to ask in case they say "no"...
What's the harm in asking?
Heracles Pollux
> >As I stated, they said they would "keep us informed", we did ask, and
> >we have written papers on this subject and supplied the concepts to
> >them. We did attempt to start the first open-systems-industy
> >initative. The BBC is not showing any signs of understanding the
> >concepts or technology.
>
> So the bottom line is, as they haven't contacted you over this, you won't
> contact them?
I can assure you that hundreds of people have contacted them
consistantly for the past 2.3 years of LOGOFREETV.org.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Nick Humphries
<e30...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >As I stated, they said they would "keep us informed", we did ask, and
>> >we have written papers on this subject and supplied the concepts to
>> >them. We did attempt to start the first open-systems-industy
>> >initative. The BBC is not showing any signs of understanding the
>> >concepts or technology.
>>
>> So the bottom line is, as they haven't contacted you over this, you won't
>> contact them?
>
>I can assure you that hundreds of people have contacted them
>consistantly for the past 2.3 years of LOGOFREETV.org.
Why do you think that the whole of the BBC and the people they contract out to
know of your demands? It's entirely possible that, as the V-DOG tech is aimed
at providing content advice, the people developing this tech is unaware that
LOGOFREETV even exists.
Now is not a time to sit around doing nothing.
Bill Godfrey
> The BBC are now developing the V-DOG protocol for a specific application.
> Now is the time to be working with them so that it's also used for DOGs
> and red dots.
_*IF*_ the channels would send the logos on the same medium as the red-dot
graphics, and the box software would have a option "Disable red-dot
graphic" which stays in place until I switch the option back, that would be
lovely.
I'd even be happy for the graphics option to default to on, so long as it
stays off when I take the trouble to turn them off. Thay way, the docile
masses would still get thier logos and those want rid of them can be rid of
them.
Is there anything I can do achieve these goals?
Bill, I write these sign-offs in order to establish a unique identity in a
multi-author newsgroup.
--
The address in the reply to header is correct, but I'll
read it quicker if you drop the word "usenet".
Nick Humphries
Godfrey) wrote:
>ni...@egyptus.co.uk wrote:
>> The BBC are now developing the V-DOG protocol for a specific application.
>> Now is the time to be working with them so that it's also used for DOGs
>> and red dots.
>
>_*IF*_ the channels would send the logos on the same medium as the red-dot
>graphics, and the box software would have a option "Disable red-dot
>graphic" which stays in place until I switch the option back, that would be
>lovely.
>
>I'd even be happy for the graphics option to default to on, so long as it
>stays off when I take the trouble to turn them off. Thay way, the docile
>masses would still get thier logos and those want rid of them can be rid of
>them.
>
>Is there anything I can do achieve these goals?
Find out who to contact within the BBC who would know about this V-DOG project
that is being used for content advice and ask them if it would be at all
possible to use or adapt that application so that it could also be used to
show channel identifiers and red dots. You could even suggest that you could
put in a subtitles notifier into that application. Verify that all the BBC
would do is sent that data and/or graphics in a stream seperate from the TV
picture and that it would be left to the set top box to decide how to render
and display the information.
It's also worth asking if the V-DOG technology allows for animated as well as
static graphics. If so, then you can mention that it can be used for those
"coming next" messages, as well as all those other DOGs such as "ALL NEW",
etc.
Approach the BBC *nicely* - no paragraphs telling them that they've done
everything wrong. Stick to the subject of widening the use of the V-DOG and
don't get sidetracked to the much larger and more complex arguments of using
DOGs at all.
All my info and ideas were spurred on by this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F23%2Fntv23.xml
That's the sum total of my knowledge on V-DOGs, so the more questions that are
asked and the more ideas put forward the better.
I'm not sure that the BBC uses the term "V-DOG" - that appears to be one
invented by LOGOFREETV. The article merely describes it as an on-screen
warning that would only be available for digital viewers, so it's probably
best to describe it in those sorts of terms in all contact with the BBC as
they'll probably won't know what "V-DOGs" are.
If you think that this might be a lot of hassle, just think about the possible
benefits.
* Plasma screen TV owners won't suffer burn-in from DOGs.
* No distractions for those people who are affected by DOGs.
* Ability to record from your set-top box and not record any DOGs.
For those three reasons alone anti-DOG campaigners should be contacting the
BBC for more information about this V-DOG technology.
Heracles Pollux
>
> Why do you think that the whole of the BBC and the people they contract out to
> know of your demands? It's entirely possible that, as the V-DOG tech is aimed
> at providing content advice, the people developing this tech is unaware that
> LOGOFREETV even exists.
>
> Now is not a time to sit around doing nothing.
Again, Nick.
I can assure you that about 150 written pages of papers and 3 major case
documents including the below were sent on paper to the BBC via The
Director General.
http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=article_bskyb_30032003
Nick Humphries
<e30...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do you think that the whole of the BBC and the people they contract out to
>> know of your demands? It's entirely possible that, as the V-DOG tech is aimed
>> at providing content advice, the people developing this tech is unaware that
>> LOGOFREETV even exists.
>>
>> Now is not a time to sit around doing nothing.
>
>
>
>Again, Nick.
>
>I can assure you that about 150 written pages of papers and 3 major case
>documents including the below were sent on paper to the BBC via The
>Director General.
How can you be so sure that the information has reached the people working on
these V-DOGs? We don't even know who's working on it.
Nick Humphries
Stephen Whittle, the BBC controller of editorial policy, sounds like the ideal
candidate for this.
Heracles Pollux
news:20031018135132.957$Z...@newsreader.com
> ni...@egyptus.co.uk wrote:
> > The BBC are now developing the V-DOG protocol for a specific application.
> > Now is the time to be working with them so that it's also used for DOGs
> > and red dots.
>
> _*IF*_ the channels would send the logos on the same medium as the red-dot
> graphics, and the box software would have a option "Disable red-dot
> graphic" which stays in place until I switch the option back, that would be
> lovely.
>
> I'd even be happy for the graphics option to default to on, so long as it
> stays off when I take the trouble to turn them off. Thay way, the docile
> masses would still get thier logos and those want rid of them can be rid of
> them.
>
> Is there anything I can do achieve these goals?
>
Bill:
1. Firstly LOGOFREETV.org is the only organisation (that we know of)
assembling the V-DOG proposal.
The V-DOG concept (as far as I know) was first written in a proposal by
the LOGOFREETV webmaster in April 2000 sent to BSKYB's Directors and
Chief of Technology.
This is the current written proposal for the V-DOG solution as part of a
regulatory compliance solution for Interactive Digital TV:
http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=article_bskyb_30032003#11
The paper was supplied to the BBC Director General, CEO of Channel Four,
and of course 2 Directors on BSKYB's board. BSKYB were willing to
discuss the ideas in a meeting too which is an excellent sign.
2. All organisations have stated they would "explore" the concept, but
it would be my opinion that this is P.R. and obfuscation. No attempt to
"explore" of substance has yet taken place in the form of say an
industry symposium or "workshop".
3. Before stage 2 will happen, there still needs to be more fear, pain,
and anguish. Regretably, most broadcasters are still at an early stage
of understanding the consequences of Digital technologies, DOGs, iTV,
broadband, etc.
The route people can use to support the de-logo or V-DOG idea plus RED
DOT switch are:
1. Form and or join an anti LOGO organisation:
- There is http://LOGOFREETV.org/
- There is http://www.whatvideotv.com/
The most work has been done by LOGOFREETV.org which has a mere 1,706
members but no funding and therefore very small physical presence.
2. Write to the big chiefs (and these details are available on
http://LOGOFREETV.org/)
BBC, The Director General, Mr Greg Dyke.
http://logofreetv.org/?mode=BBC_Corporate#How_to_Contact_BBC
Channel Four, The CEO, Mr Mark Thompson.
http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=Channel_Four#How_to_Contact_C4
British Sky Broadcasting PLC, The CEO, Mr Tony Ball,
http://logofreetv.org/render.asp?mode=sky_corporate#How_to_Contact_Sky
The Department of Culture Media and Sport,
The Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport,
The Right Honourable Tessa Jowell, MP
2-4 Cockspur Street
London SW1Y 5DH
3. LOGOFREETV activity
Correspond
Log correspondence in our database
Publish
Post issues on http://forum.logofreetv.org/
Press Releases
Attend public meetings such as the VLV, Westminster Media Forum
Write to all public consultations
Talk to MPs, CMS committee members, ministers, professors
Lobby OFCOM, BBC Board of Governors
and by now most ordinary viewers will be fast asleep.... zzzzz.....
Heracles Pollux
> > Find out who to contact within the BBC who would know about this V-DOG project
>
> Stephen Whittle, the BBC controller of editorial policy, sounds like the ideal
> candidate for this.
If I may venture an opinion, it is the Director General's job to
abitrate policy. The V-DOG project will not happen via Mr Whittle's
office. If anything, it will happen via Andy Duncan, however Mr Duncan
is a supermarket marketerr recurited from a different type of industry.
The BBC's Director of Marketing and Audiances has never responded to any
of LOGOFREETV's letters.
We go to the D.G. and Chairman alone; The men at the top with ultimate
responsibility.
Heracles Pollux
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:47:31 +0000 (UTC), "Heracles Pollux"
> <e30...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Why do you think that the whole of the BBC and the people they contract out to
> >> know of your demands? It's entirely possible that, as the V-DOG tech is aimed
> >> at providing content advice, the people developing this tech is unaware that
> >> LOGOFREETV even exists.
> >>
> >> Now is not a time to sit around doing nothing.
> >
> >
> >
> >Again, Nick.
> >
> >I can assure you that about 150 written pages of papers and 3 major case
> >documents including the below were sent on paper to the BBC via The
> >Director General.
>
> How can you be so sure that the information has reached the people working on
> these V-DOGs? We don't even know who's working on it.
I would love to know these details. Unfortunately the "open and
accountable" BBC is closed and secretive in how it works.
;-)
Please, any one who can find out these details come forward.
Any one with access to Gateway out there able to look into what Mr
Whittle was refering to?
Nick Humphries
<e30...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Nick Humphries" <ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2p33pv4t3tv8kcnb8...@4ax.com
>
>> > Find out who to contact within the BBC who would know about this V-DOG project
>>
>> Stephen Whittle, the BBC controller of editorial policy, sounds like the ideal
>> candidate for this.
>
>
>
>If I may venture an opinion, it is the Director General's job to
>abitrate policy. The V-DOG project will not happen via Mr Whittle's
>office.
Then why is he commenting about it in the Telegraph?
It's worth asking him.
Nick Humphries
><e30...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 18 Oct 2003 01:34:23 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
Why have you given yourself another alias?
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:08:47 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <nhv0pvklttgktdbt1...@4ax.com>,
> >ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >> >How do I work with them, then, given how they'll stick their DOGs over the
> >> >screen regardless?
> >>
> >> You'll have got rid of the "long-term" ones like the channel ID and red dot.
> >> Or do you suddenly like those so that you won't get off your arse and do
> >> something for yourself rather than ranting at the sidelines?
> >>
> >I wouldn't put money on them just dropping such things, or even making them
> >optional.
>
> Sounds like you're actually afraid to ask in case they say "no"...
>
> What's the harm in asking?
I've asked many times.
Little victories along the way seem to be:
- BBC3/4 not DOGging every programme/film
- ITV splitting less films with news, since I emailed them a few weeks back,
since before then it was done routinely
- ITV saying after The Brits that they'll drop the constant 'press red' when
it becomes second nature. C4 are already looking like they've seen the light
by making it invisible
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <1052pvskp3kpcmbhi...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:08:47 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <nhv0pvklttgktdbt1...@4ax.com>,
>> >ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> >> >How do I work with them, then, given how they'll stick their DOGs over the
>> >> >screen regardless?
>> >>
>> >> You'll have got rid of the "long-term" ones like the channel ID and red dot.
>> >> Or do you suddenly like those so that you won't get off your arse and do
>> >> something for yourself rather than ranting at the sidelines?
>> >>
>> >I wouldn't put money on them just dropping such things, or even making them
>> >optional.
>>
>> Sounds like you're actually afraid to ask in case they say "no"...
>>
>> What's the harm in asking?
>
>I've asked many times.
>
>Little victories along the way seem to be:
>- BBC3/4 not DOGging every programme/film
>- ITV splitting less films with news, since I emailed them a few weeks back,
> since before then it was done routinely
>- ITV saying after The Brits that they'll drop the constant 'press red' when
> it becomes second nature. C4 are already looking like they've seen the light
> by making it invisible
But you were communicating with a set of people who are probably seperate from
those developing the onscreen content adviser.
Or do you believe that if one person in the BBC knows something, then everyone
else does too?
Dom Robinson
The BBC themselves state that every email/call/etc is logged, and gets passed
on to the relevant dept.
Perhaps, in ITV's case, me telling them that they lose 40% of their audience
if they split a film with the news has made them realise that ratings are
actually important?
Nick Humphries
wrote:
And at the moment it's entirely possible that the relevant dept that handles
DOG complaints is a different dept from the one developing the onscreen
content advice.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
I don't have ESP so I can't automatically know who's dealing with what. Any
emails I sent are also forwarded to all the bigwigs as well (maybe some have
secretaries to read them, but Murphy reads his own)
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <1co4pv06ncsuirtaq...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> >The BBC themselves state that every email/call/etc is logged, and gets passed
>> >on to the relevant dept.
>>
>> And at the moment it's entirely possible that the relevant dept that handles
>> DOG complaints is a different dept from the one developing the onscreen
>> content advice.
>>
>Then that's up to them to cc: such complaints to all the relevant departments.
>I don't have ESP so I can't automatically know who's dealing with what. Any
>emails I sent are also forwarded to all the bigwigs as well (maybe some have
>secretaries to read them, but Murphy reads his own)
Right now you know that Stephen Whittle is giving press interviews on the
subject of the onscreen content warning system, yet you consider it beneath
yourself to contact him and ask about widening its purpose so that it handles
your issues with DOGs and red dots and the like?
I'll leave you to wallow in your pit of self-importance.
For your sake I hope someone else interested in getting rid of DOGs picks up
the ball that you and LOGOFREETV dropped.
Heracles Pollux
> >On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:38:00 +0000 (UTC), "Heracles Pollux"
> ><e30...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Oct 2003 01:34:23 -0700, e30...@hotmail.com (NO LOGO) wrote:
>
> Why have you given yourself another alias?
The previous ISP was time lagging.
Ant
<ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote:
>All my info and ideas were spurred on by this article:
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F23%2Fntv23.xml
All that talks about is an on-screen warning which would flash up when
you changed to a channel which was showing violent content (i.e. if
you'd missed the "this programme contains strong language and explicit
sex right from the start - so make sure you've got a tape in"
announcement.
Unless I'm missing something, it's nothing to do with channel 'DOGs'
at all. It's unlikely that a set top box could generate a decent
looking 'DOG' by itself anyway as the transparency and anti-aliasing
would be gone.
Nick Humphries
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:17:03 +0100, Nick Humphries
><ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>All my info and ideas were spurred on by this article:
>>
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F23%2Fntv23.xml
>
>All that talks about is an on-screen warning which would flash up when
>you changed to a channel which was showing violent content (i.e. if
>you'd missed the "this programme contains strong language and explicit
>sex right from the start - so make sure you've got a tape in"
>announcement.
>
>Unless I'm missing something, it's nothing to do with channel 'DOGs'
>at all.
At the moment, yes. What I've been saying is that it's in the development
stage, so now is the time to contact the BBC about it to see if its use can be
expanded to cover some of the DOGs used. By the time that the system is
complete it could be too late.
>It's unlikely that a set top box could generate a decent
>looking 'DOG' by itself anyway as the transparency and anti-aliasing
>would be gone.
My set top box does transparency and anti-aliasing quite well.
Heracles Pollux
news:3f9271f3...@enews.newsguy.com
The Sky Interactive platform can do transparent graphical overlays.
In my view, there is no such thing as a decent looking "DOG".
Examples:
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:35:52 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1co4pv06ncsuirtaq...@4ax.com>,
> >ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >> >The BBC themselves state that every email/call/etc is logged, and gets passed
> >> >on to the relevant dept.
> >>
> >> And at the moment it's entirely possible that the relevant dept that handles
> >> DOG complaints is a different dept from the one developing the onscreen
> >> content advice.
> >>
> >Then that's up to them to cc: such complaints to all the relevant departments.
> >I don't have ESP so I can't automatically know who's dealing with what. Any
> >emails I sent are also forwarded to all the bigwigs as well (maybe some have
> >secretaries to read them, but Murphy reads his own)
>
> Right now you know that Stephen Whittle is giving press interviews on the
> subject of the onscreen content warning system, yet you consider it beneath
> yourself to contact him and ask about widening its purpose so that it handles
> your issues with DOGs and red dots and the like?
Got his email address?
What do we need an "onscreen content warning system" for? Just get rid of the
stuff full stop. Don't need it. You didn't need it 20 years ago so why need it
now? What can it do that "the following programme contains strong language"
doesn't already do in a pre-show continuity link?
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>What do we need an "onscreen content warning system" for? Just get rid of the
>stuff full stop. Don't need it. You didn't need it 20 years ago so why need it
>now? What can it do that "the following programme contains strong language"
>doesn't already do in a pre-show continuity link?
In order to see the pre-show continuity link for a show that you've missed the
beginning to, you would have to travel back in time.
Vidcapper
>LOGOFREETV News Release
>
>"If you had your own TV channel, what would be on it?"
I'd like to say 24/7 Dedee, but there'd probably be only me & Dom
watching it, and everything would repeat after about a week. :)
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
> What do we need an "onscreen content warning system" for?
What that be anything like the old C4 red triangle? I suppose it gives Mary
Whitehouse's successor a hint about which programmes they need to watch so
they can get indignant about them.
mh.
--
Sig temporarily unavailable.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:56:00 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What do we need an "onscreen content warning system" for? Just get rid of the
> >stuff full stop. Don't need it. You didn't need it 20 years ago so why need it
> >now? What can it do that "the following programme contains strong language"
> >doesn't already do in a pre-show continuity link?
>
> In order to see the pre-show continuity link for a show that you've missed the
> beginning to, you would have to travel back in time.
>
"Warning: someone says 'cunt' in 5... 4... 3..." ?
Dom Robinson
says...
completely two-faced.
Dom Robinson
vidc...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk says...
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:17:03 +0100, Nick Humphries
> ><ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>All my info and ideas were spurred on by this article:
> >>
> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F23%2Fntv23.xml
> >
> >All that talks about is an on-screen warning which would flash up when
> >you changed to a channel which was showing violent content (i.e. if
> >you'd missed the "this programme contains strong language and explicit
> >sex right from the start - so make sure you've got a tape in"
> >announcement.
> >
> >Unless I'm missing something, it's nothing to do with channel 'DOGs'
> >at all.
>
> At the moment, yes. What I've been saying is that it's in the development
> stage, so now is the time to contact the BBC about it to see if its use can be
> expanded to cover some of the DOGs used. By the time that the system is
> complete it could be too late.
>
onscreen irritance will be created by someone who will know that there are
people who would rather they weren't there, so I would be telling Whittle
something he already knows but doesn't particularly care about.
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <i2u4pvcp1b4vlipd7...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> >On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:17:03 +0100, Nick Humphries
>> ><ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>All my info and ideas were spurred on by this article:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F23%2Fntv23.xml
>> >
>> >All that talks about is an on-screen warning which would flash up when
>> >you changed to a channel which was showing violent content (i.e. if
>> >you'd missed the "this programme contains strong language and explicit
>> >sex right from the start - so make sure you've got a tape in"
>> >announcement.
>> >
>> >Unless I'm missing something, it's nothing to do with channel 'DOGs'
>> >at all.
>>
>> At the moment, yes. What I've been saying is that it's in the development
>> stage, so now is the time to contact the BBC about it to see if its use can be
>> expanded to cover some of the DOGs used. By the time that the system is
>> complete it could be too late.
>>
>But over time 100's of people have complained about DOGs, so any new form of
>onscreen irritance will be created by someone who will know that there are
>people who would rather they weren't there, so I would be telling Whittle
>something he already knows but doesn't particularly care about.
The difference about this "onscreen irritance" is that its display is designed
to be configured by the set top box. In other words, you'll be able to turn it
off if you don't want it.
I really don't see your problem. You're willing to send off rants to random
people in the BBC, put up webpages containing more rants plus reports of new
DOGs, and yet you're too short-sighted to even consider sending off an
email/letter/phonecall to someone who is now in a real position to do
something to help you.
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <pkv4pvsr64kab5pib...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:56:00 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What do we need an "onscreen content warning system" for? Just get rid of the
>> >stuff full stop. Don't need it. You didn't need it 20 years ago so why need it
>> >now? What can it do that "the following programme contains strong language"
>> >doesn't already do in a pre-show continuity link?
>>
>> In order to see the pre-show continuity link for a show that you've missed the
>> beginning to, you would have to travel back in time.
>>
>So where does it stop? Have a constant logo onscreen to say
>"Warning: someone says 'cunt' in 5... 4... 3..." ?
If you're able to switch it off, does it really matter to you how it's used?
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >> At the moment, yes. What I've been saying is that it's in the development
> >> stage, so now is the time to contact the BBC about it to see if its use can be
> >> expanded to cover some of the DOGs used. By the time that the system is
> >> complete it could be too late.
> >>
> >But over time 100's of people have complained about DOGs, so any new form of
> >onscreen irritance will be created by someone who will know that there are
> >people who would rather they weren't there, so I would be telling Whittle
> >something he already knows but doesn't particularly care about.
>
> The difference about this "onscreen irritance" is that its display is designed
> to be configured by the set top box. In other words, you'll be able to turn it
> off if you don't want it.
>
> I really don't see your problem. You're willing to send off rants to random
> people in the BBC, put up webpages containing more rants plus reports of new
> DOGs, and yet you're too short-sighted to even consider sending off an
> email/letter/phonecall to someone who is now in a real position to do
> something to help you.
>
However, it appears this is something in addition to all the usual logos and
"press red"s that we have already, so how is extra rubbish (even if it's turn
offable) a good thing?
Dom Robinson
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:51:30 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <pkv4pvsr64kab5pib...@4ax.com>,
> >ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:56:00 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >What do we need an "onscreen content warning system" for? Just get rid of the
> >> >stuff full stop. Don't need it. You didn't need it 20 years ago so why need it
> >> >now? What can it do that "the following programme contains strong language"
> >> >doesn't already do in a pre-show continuity link?
> >>
> >> In order to see the pre-show continuity link for a show that you've missed the
> >> beginning to, you would have to travel back in time.
> >>
> >So where does it stop? Have a constant logo onscreen to say
> >"Warning: someone says 'cunt' in 5... 4... 3..." ?
>
> If you're able to switch it off, does it really matter to you how it's used?
>
themselves?
Dom Robinson
murphyi...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <0075pvscf4nierkfn...@4ax.com>,
> ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> > On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:51:30 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <pkv4pvsr64kab5pib...@4ax.com>,
> > >ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> > >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:56:00 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >What do we need an "onscreen content warning system" for? Just get rid of the
> > >> >stuff full stop. Don't need it. You didn't need it 20 years ago so why need it
> > >> >now? What can it do that "the following programme contains strong language"
> > >> >doesn't already do in a pre-show continuity link?
> > >>
> > >> In order to see the pre-show continuity link for a show that you've missed the
> > >> beginning to, you would have to travel back in time.
> > >>
> > >So where does it stop? Have a constant logo onscreen to say
> > >"Warning: someone says 'cunt' in 5... 4... 3..." ?
> >
> > If you're able to switch it off, does it really matter to you how it's used?
> >
> At what point are the TV viewing public given a chance to think for
> themselves?
>
the programmes, not extra junk that I may or may not be able to turn off. It's
such a waste. You cannot disagree on that.
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>I've already asked if you've got an email address for him.
If you were serious about this you'd have already come up with the idea of
calling the BBC yourself and asking about the best way of contacting him.
Nick Humphries
wrote:
Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to not get up off
your arse and do something about making DOGs optional so you don't have to see
them again. I've tried to see where you're coming from, but all I can conclude
is that you're a lazy arrogant idiot who thinks that the world should adapt to
you rather than vice versa.
I'll leave you alone to puff up your own ego with your rants against DOGs and
the TV companies. No one can reason with a screaming child throwing a tantrum.
Heracles Pollux
The standard IT industy trick of inventing a problem in order to sell a
solution.
Bill Godfrey
> The difference about this "onscreen irritance" is that its display is
> designed to be configured by the set top box. In other words, you'll be
> able to turn it off if you don't want it.
Right, but there would need to be a switch accessable by the user. (A
switch that lasts a lot longer than pressing back-up.)
> I really don't see your problem. You're willing to send off rants to
> random people in the BBC, put up webpages containing more rants plus
> reports of new DOGs, and yet you're too short-sighted to even consider
> sending off an email/letter/phonecall to someone who is now in a real
> position to do something to help you.
The channels have been contacted so many times already. The BBC seem to
have a pre-packed response to any complaints.
I'll try one more time with my suggestion of putting the logo in the same
graphic as the red dot. Maybe my letter will be the one needed to make them
change thier minds.
Bill, we'll do it because Bill said so.
--
The address in the reply to header is correct, but I'll
read it quicker if you drop the word "usenet".
Nick Humphries
Godfrey) wrote:
>ni...@egyptus.co.uk wrote:
>> The difference about this "onscreen irritance" is that its display is
>> designed to be configured by the set top box. In other words, you'll be
>> able to turn it off if you don't want it.
>
>Right, but there would need to be a switch accessable by the user. (A
>switch that lasts a lot longer than pressing back-up.)
Yes. I'm thinking along the lines of a simple setup option that's set once and
the set top box remembers it, like setting what screen ratio to display in.
>> I really don't see your problem. You're willing to send off rants to
>> random people in the BBC, put up webpages containing more rants plus
>> reports of new DOGs, and yet you're too short-sighted to even consider
>> sending off an email/letter/phonecall to someone who is now in a real
>> position to do something to help you.
>
>The channels have been contacted so many times already. The BBC seem to
>have a pre-packed response to any complaints.
Yes, but this is different as we now have a specific and new idea to put
forward, rather than a general one that has been repeated ad infinitum.
>I'll try one more time with my suggestion of putting the logo in the same
>graphic as the red dot. Maybe my letter will be the one needed to make them
>change thier minds.
Perhaps it would be a good idea if you addressed your letter to "Stephen
Whittle, Controller of Editorial Policy, BBC" (or whatever) as it might have
more effect than sending yet another letter to the Duty Office. After all, we
know that Stephen Whittle knows about this "V-DOG" project - we can't be
certain that whoever's working in the Duty Office does.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >Plus, creating new logos isn't cheap. I'd rather my licence fee was spent on
> >the programmes, not extra junk that I may or may not be able to turn off. It's
> >such a waste. You cannot disagree on that.
>
> Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to not get up off
> your arse and do something about making DOGs optional so you don't have to see
> them again. I've tried to see where you're coming from, but all I can conclude
> is that you're a lazy arrogant idiot who thinks that the world should adapt to
> you rather than vice versa.
Charming. I've contacted them before about making them optional. I believe
we've covered this already.
> I'll leave you alone to puff up your own ego with your rants against DOGs and
> the TV companies.
So is that the last I'll hear from you on this subject?
> No one can reason with a screaming child throwing a tantrum.
Well, take a pill and stop screaming, then.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >I'll try one more time with my suggestion of putting the logo in the same
> >graphic as the red dot. Maybe my letter will be the one needed to make them
> >change thier minds.
>
> Perhaps it would be a good idea if you addressed your letter to "Stephen
> Whittle, Controller of Editorial Policy, BBC" (or whatever) as it might have
> more effect than sending yet another letter to the Duty Office. After all, we
> know that Stephen Whittle knows about this "V-DOG" project - we can't be
> certain that whoever's working in the Duty Office does.
>
Ant
<ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote:
>At the moment, yes. What I've been saying is that it's in the development
>stage, so now is the time to contact the BBC about it to see if its use can be
>expanded to cover some of the DOGs used. By the time that the system is
>complete it could be too late.
There's no urgency. This is nothing more complex than what has been
done for years. It's just a red dot with a different shape.
Nick Humphries
...but treated seperately from the red dot and designed to be filtered by the
set top box, whereas the red dot was originally implemented so that it would
appear constantly when there was interactive material available.
I suspect the new system would be more flexible which would allow a set of
different graphics to be transmitted and then selected graphics displayed
onscreen according to a set of rules defined by the set top box configuration
and triggered by specific signals broadcast in parallel to the picture and
sound signals. That's how I'd design one anyway.
But, we don't know any details about the new system, which is why I'm saying
questions should be asked now with an aim of making as many of the present
DOGs optional under the new system. To even dismiss the idea of investigating
this new system at this stage doesn't make sense if you actually want DOGs to
go away. Unless you have the specifications of the new system to hand, how can
you think otherwise?
The people who've made the most noise about DOGs don't appear to want to see
if this new system can solve their current problems, believing that all the
emails they've sent the BBC full of generalised rants against DOGs gets
forwarded throughout the organisation, even to people who have no interest in
DOGs (like the team working on this new system, according to what little info
we have right now). I believe this head-in-the-sand attitude will get them
nowhere.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:04:06 GMT, A...@0spam.want.no.spam.zzz (Ant) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:44:43 +0100, Nick Humphries
> ><ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>At the moment, yes. What I've been saying is that it's in the development
> >>stage, so now is the time to contact the BBC about it to see if its use can be
> >>expanded to cover some of the DOGs used. By the time that the system is
> >>complete it could be too late.
> >
> >There's no urgency. This is nothing more complex than what has been
> >done for years. It's just a red dot with a different shape.
>
> ...but treated seperately from the red dot and designed to be filtered by the
> set top box, whereas the red dot was originally implemented so that it would
> appear constantly when there was interactive material available.
These could be turned off at the digibox if the broadcasters weren't so
arrogant about it.
> I suspect the new system would be more flexible which would allow a set of
> different graphics to be transmitted and then selected graphics displayed
> onscreen according to a set of rules defined by the set top box configuration
> and triggered by specific signals broadcast in parallel to the picture and
> sound signals. That's how I'd design one anyway.
But if TV stations are currently prepared to force TV idents, red dots, the
clock, the name of the programme, text messages and all other kinds of things
AT THE SAME TIME, why should they bother to make any of this optional?
> But, we don't know any details about the new system, which is why I'm saying
> questions should be asked now with an aim of making as many of the present
> DOGs optional under the new system. To even dismiss the idea of investigating
> this new system at this stage doesn't make sense if you actually want DOGs to
> go away. Unless you have the specifications of the new system to hand, how can
> you think otherwise?
All of this could be made possible now by upgrading the box menu to include
such an option. Red dots can't be seen on a Sky+ recording so it's easily
done. The TV stations manage to turn them off during ad breaks so some
companies can use them in their adverts.
What do you think Whittle is being paid to do that can't be done already,
without paying him thosands of pounds a year at our expense?
All these DOGs can be switched off from view and still be made to work, so
what exactly is he doing?
> The people who've made the most noise about DOGs don't appear to want to see
> if this new system can solve their current problems, believing that all the
> emails they've sent the BBC full of generalised rants against DOGs gets
> forwarded throughout the organisation, even to people who have no interest in
> DOGs (like the team working on this new system, according to what little info
> we have right now). I believe this head-in-the-sand attitude will get them
> nowhere.
I believe such emails about DOGs, or at least a compilation of the comments
and stats, should be forwarded to those people dealing with DOGs. Whether they
do is up to them.
The ones with their head in the sand are the broadcasters.
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>What do you think Whittle is being paid to do that can't be done already,
>without paying him thosands of pounds a year at our expense?
>
>All these DOGs can be switched off from view and still be made to work, so
>what exactly is he doing?
You ask these questions and then discard the idea of contacting him for more
information. All you do is complain, yet seem incapable of thinking for
yourself.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:34:50 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What do you think Whittle is being paid to do that can't be done already,
> >without paying him thosands of pounds a year at our expense?
> >
> >All these DOGs can be switched off from view and still be made to work, so
> >what exactly is he doing?
>
> You ask these questions and then discard the idea of contacting him for more
> information.
I was asking you the questions. Are you able to answer them, in terms of
purely giving your thoughts?
> All you do is complain, yet seem incapable of thinking for
> yourself.
??
--
Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 953 DVDs, 261 games, 33 videos, 68 cinema films, 69 CDs, laserdiscs & news
/* darkness falls, the truth about medion, final destination 2, old school
Vidcapper
:
>> >
>> >"If you had your own TV channel, what would be on it?"
>>
>> I'd like to say 24/7 Dedee, but there'd probably be only me & Dom
>> watching it, and everything would repeat after about a week. :)
>>
>After five minutes of "The Veronica Moser Show", my dinner would repeat...
Veronica Moser? Am I missing something?
Dom Robinson
vidc...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk says...
The internet is your friend, or probably not in this case.
--
Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 953 DVDs, 261 games, 33 videos, 68 cinema films, 69 CDs, laserdiscs & news
/* darkness falls, the truth about medion, final destination 2, old school
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>In article <8f56pvkn8omoi9meb...@4ax.com>,
>ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:34:50 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What do you think Whittle is being paid to do that can't be done already,
>> >without paying him thosands of pounds a year at our expense?
>> >
>> >All these DOGs can be switched off from view and still be made to work, so
>> >what exactly is he doing?
>>
>> You ask these questions and then discard the idea of contacting him for more
>> information.
>
>I was asking you the questions. Are you able to answer them, in terms of
>purely giving your thoughts?
I don't have enough information to form a credible opinion. Neither do you,
nor are you at all interested in discovering any.
Don't bother replying. You might like the sound of your own voice, but I don't
anymore.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 01:56:07 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <8f56pvkn8omoi9meb...@4ax.com>,
> >ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:34:50 +0100, Dom Robinson <murphyi...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >What do you think Whittle is being paid to do that can't be done already,
> >> >without paying him thosands of pounds a year at our expense?
> >> >
> >> >All these DOGs can be switched off from view and still be made to work, so
> >> >what exactly is he doing?
> >>
> >> You ask these questions and then discard the idea of contacting him for more
> >> information.
> >
> >I was asking you the questions. Are you able to answer them, in terms of
> >purely giving your thoughts?
>
> I don't have enough information to form a credible opinion. Neither do you,
> nor are you at all interested in discovering any.
>
> Don't bother replying. You might like the sound of your own voice,
I didn't realise usenet was more than text. Should I switch on my speakers?
> but I don't anymore.
Well don't reply to the thread!
Nick Humphries
Godfrey) wrote:
>I'll try one more time with my suggestion of putting the logo in the same
>graphic as the red dot. Maybe my letter will be the one needed to make them
>change thier minds.
I'd be interested to hear how you get on, and the details of this new system
Stephen Whittle was talking about (if he gives you any). If you have the time,
please drop me an email at the address below.
Nick Humphries
wrote:
>On 19 Oct 2003 15:49:21 GMT, billg-...@bacchae.f9.co.uk.invalid (Bill
>Godfrey) wrote:
>
>>I'll try one more time with my suggestion of putting the logo in the same
>>graphic as the red dot. Maybe my letter will be the one needed to make them
>>change thier minds.
>
>I'd be interested to hear how you get on, and the details of this new system
>Stephen Whittle was talking about (if he gives you any). If you have the time,
>please drop me an email at the address below.
Ahhh the joys of pressing "send Usenet reply" rather than "send email reply"
:)
Ant
<ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote:
>>There's no urgency. This is nothing more complex than what has been
>>done for years. It's just a red dot with a different shape.
>
>...but treated seperately from the red dot and designed to be filtered by the
>set top box, whereas the red dot was originally implemented so that it would
>appear constantly when there was interactive material available.
But there's no talk of these 'warning' popups being filtered by the
set top box at all. And the red dots have always been able to
disappear so many seconds after appearing - the BBC does it all the
time.
All this talk about "V-Dogs" seems to be implying that this is what
the BBC are developing, and it's quite obviously not. It's just a
pop-up sex warning, no more. Nothing we haven't seen already, nothing
that changes anything.
Nick Humphries
>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:47:59 +0100, Nick Humphries
><ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>There's no urgency. This is nothing more complex than what has been
>>>done for years. It's just a red dot with a different shape.
>>
>>...but treated seperately from the red dot and designed to be filtered by the
>>set top box, whereas the red dot was originally implemented so that it would
>>appear constantly when there was interactive material available.
>
>But there's no talk of these 'warning' popups being filtered by the
>set top box at all.
Nope, it's an assumption that I'm making until I get more info. Given the
large percentage of households without children in, not everyone will want
content warnings popping up. True, red dots could be altered using a
bodge-job, but IMHO the proper way would be to write a generic DOG system
that's fiterable by the set top box - the BBC admits that DOGs annoy a lot of
people, so this could be a solution that pleases both sides.
It also opens up the door to subscription interactive services - a dot that
would only appear and be active if your subscription is paid up, so if you're
a fan of interactive services and are subscribed to a few, you'll only get the
dots which correspond to your subscription. I doubt the current red dot system
would be able to handle that.
>And the red dots have always been able to
>disappear so many seconds after appearing - the BBC does it all the
>time.
Apparently it's a set top box thing. Mine also takes away the red dots after a
few seconds, yet there's been a ton of rants in uk.media.tv.misc about red
dots which don't go away.
>All this talk about "V-Dogs" seems to be implying that this is what
>the BBC are developing, and it's quite obviously not. It's just a
>pop-up sex warning, no more. Nothing we haven't seen already, nothing
>that changes anything.
Until we know more details than the passing comments in a few newspaper
articles we can't say either way - which is why I've been saying that the
anti-DOG brigade should be asking for more details to see if it could be used
to their advantage. All I've seen on the LOGOFREETV site is a whine about why
the new system isn't to be used for DOGs - an assumption they made.
Don't you see why more information is needed?