BBC Liars Strike Again
DAB sounds worse than FM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at
all.
LIARS.
--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:7ft3a6F...@mid.individual.net
> Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
>
> On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at
> all.
>
> LIARS.
Same in Scouseland:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local_radio/
and no doubt everywhere else.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
> news:7ft3a6F...@mid.individual.net
>> Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
>>
>> On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at
>> all.
>>
>> LIARS.
>
>
> Same in Scouseland:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local_radio/
>
> and no doubt everywhere else.
>
> LIARS.
Birmingham as well:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/local_radio/
seani
wrote:
> Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
>
> On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at
> all.
>
> LIARS.
>
There are two links "above the fold" for "Listen Live" and "Listen
Again".
The same thing in the "TV and Radio" section just below.
And a link to "Podcasts" just below that.
The picture is similar but not identical on the Liverpool site and the
Birmingham site.
You act like a total fucking idiot.
Silk
> Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
Shut up you sad little man.
Silk
> You act like a total fucking idiot.
It's not an act.
Silk
> LIARS.
You've replied to yourself and then replied to the reply. Can you not
see how irrational and obsessive your behaviour is?
Why can't you just leave it?
Norman
> Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
>
> On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at all.
>
> LIARS.
The "listen live" icon all over that bloody page is just decoration then?
How many commercial stations have "online" in their logos?
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:ZoSdnSeXp9bX3wfX...@bt.com
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
> news:7ft3a6F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
>>
>> On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at
>> all.
>>
>> LIARS.
>
>
> The "listen live" icon all over that bloody page is just decoration
> then?
I'm referring to the STATION's ****LOGO****. Why on earth you would
think that providing listen live links would somehow make up for
including DAB on the STATION LOGO whilst not mentioning that the
stations are available online I really have no idea.
> How many commercial stations have "online" in their logos?
The BBC was not a commercial broadcaster the last time I looked.
Silk
> I'm referring to the STATION's ****LOGO****. Why on earth you would
> think that providing listen live links would somehow make up for
> including DAB on the STATION LOGO whilst not mentioning that the
> stations are available online I really have no idea.
Everyone and their pet dog knows that BBC radio stations are available
online. Perhaps you're so thick you need to be constantly reminded. The
rest of us don't. And you call yourself qualified?
seani
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in messagenews:7ft3a6F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
>
> > On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at all.
>
> > LIARS.
>
> The "listen live" icon all over that bloody page is just decoration then?
>
> How many commercial stations have "online" in their logos?
Particularly in their online logos.
It's worth sticking "FM" in there especially as the frequency varies.
It's worth sticking "DAB" on there, as not every local station is on
DAB, and you could waste a bit of time scanning for it particularly
if you have marginal reception anyway.
There's vanishingly little point in putting "Online" anywhere
(although I bet they do). If you have an internet connection of any
kind and you have any interest in streaming it, you'll *know* it's
online in about 5 seconds.
He's barking. I suspect it's a side effect of the grief brought on by
the demise of the derivative monobrows. We shouldn't be too harsh.
Silk
> The BBC was not a commercial broadcaster the last time I looked.
That's not strictly true.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
> On Aug 30, 10:11 am, "Norman" <afc200...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in messagenews:7ft3a6F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
>
> > > On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at all.
>
> > > LIARS.
>
> > The "listen live" icon all over that bloody page is just decoration then?
>
> > How many commercial stations have "online" in their logos?
>
> Particularly in their online logos.
>
> It's worth sticking "FM" in there especially as the frequency varies.
>
> It's worth sticking "DAB" on there, as not every local station is on
> DAB,
The stations that aren't on DAB only account for about 3 or 4% of all
radio listening. In other words, virtually nothing is gained from what
you've just said.
> and you could waste a bit of time scanning for it particularly
> if you have marginal reception anyway.
>
> There's vanishingly little point in putting "Online" anywhere
> (although I bet they do). If you have an internet connection of any
> kind and you have any interest in streaming it, you'll *know* it's
> online in about 5 seconds.
We're talking about the BBC here, not commercial radio. The BBC is
meant to be "platform neutral", i.e. the BBC should not show
favoritism towards one digital platform over another. Clearly the BBC
has been doing the exact opposite of that with respect to digital
radio for the last decade.
> He's barking. I suspect it's a side effect of the grief brought on by
> the demise of the derivative monobrows. We shouldn't be too harsh.
Seani, for someone who tries so desperately hard to be seen to be
clever, you really do come out with an incredibly high proportion of
stuff that only thick people would ever come out with.
Your earlier post was a superb example. Only thick people would
suggest that the BBC providing listen live and listen again links
could possibly make up for them having DAB on their STATION LOGO and
failing to mention that the station is available online.
Thick.
Silk
> Your earlier post was a superb example. Only thick people would
> suggest that the BBC providing listen live and listen again links
> could possibly make up for them having DAB on their STATION LOGO and
> failing to mention that the station is available online.
You stupid sad little twat. Where do you suppose the logo would be seen?
Well, you wouldn't "see" it on the radio and I wouldn't mind a small bet
that the logo is almost never seen in isolation. To say that the BBC
doesn't promote online listening is simply crap. Everyone else knows it
and, I suspect, so do you. It's only your worsening mental health that
prevents you from accepting reality.
seani
As I say, you act like a total fucking idiot. Nothing in your response
comes close to changing that opinion.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
Wonderfully argued point there, seani. My, I've really learnt my
lesson for stupidly thinking that a BBC STATION LOGO that mentions DAB
but not online is perfectly acceptable because there's frigging listen
live / listen again links on the website.
The place where I first saw BBC Radio Manchester's new STATION LOGO
was on the TV, where it happens to be shown quite frequently.
Silk
> I've really learnt my
> lesson for stupidly thinking that a BBC STATION LOGO that mentions DAB
> but not online is perfectly acceptable because there's listen
> live / listen again links on the website.
I'm glad we've finally got that one sorted.
seani
>
> > As I say, you act like a total fucking idiot. Nothing in your response
> > comes close to changing that opinion.
>
> Wonderfully argued point there, seani. My, I've really learnt my
> lesson for stupidly thinking that a BBC STATION LOGO that mentions DAB
> but not online is perfectly acceptable because there's frigging listen
> live / listen again links on the website.
>
> The place where I first saw BBC Radio Manchester's new STATION LOGO
> was on the TV, where it happens to be shown quite frequently.
"Quite frequently"? The BBC Radio Manchester Logo? On TV?
How frequently is "quite"?
Does this apply to the two other stations you cited?
Are they also on the TV "quite frequently"?
I call into question your "facts".
Virtually anyone with the ability to receive a BBC radio stream has
the ability to visit the BBC website. Once they get to the iPlayer or
their own local radio page, they know it can be streamed.
The iPlayer is constantly referenced and advertised in the BBC's other
media.
Your assertion in this thread just makes you look obsessive to the
point where your judgement is fatally compromised.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
> > > As I say, you act like a total fucking idiot. Nothing in your response
> > > comes close to changing that opinion.
>
> > Wonderfully argued point there, seani. My, I've really learnt my
> > lesson for stupidly thinking that a BBC STATION LOGO that mentions DAB
> > but not online is perfectly acceptable because there's frigging listen
> > live / listen again links on the website.
>
> > The place where I first saw BBC Radio Manchester's new STATION LOGO
> > was on the TV, where it happens to be shown quite frequently.
>
> "Quite frequently"? The BBC Radio Manchester Logo? On TV?
>
> How frequently is "quite"?
>
> Does this apply to the two other stations you cited?
>
> Are they also on the TV "quite frequently"?
Every few days, I reckon.
> I call into question your "facts".
I can't prove that it's shown on TV "quite frequently", but I'm just
going off my recollection of how often it's shown on North West
Tonight.
> Virtually anyone with the ability to receive a BBC radio stream has
> the ability to visit the BBC website. Once they get to the iPlayer or
> their own local radio page, they know it can be streamed.
This is irrelevant to the point I'm making. The point is that the BBC
is meant to be platform neutral, i.e. the BBC is not supposed to show
favoritism towards one platform over another. Are you *seriously*
suggesting that the BBC shows no favoritism towards DAB wrt digital
radio platforms??
> The iPlayer is constantly referenced and advertised in the BBC's other
> media.
Irrelevant. The discussion here is about the BBC local stations'
station logo wrt the BBC's supposed remit of being platform neutral.
> Your assertion in this thread just makes you look obsessive to the
> point where your judgement is fatally compromised.
Nonsense. There's an enormous amount of evidence that clearly shows
that the BBC is incredibly biased towards DAB and that the BBC is
biased against Internet radio, and it's widely recognised why they're
so biased - it's because that's what suits the BBC in the longer term,
even though they know full well that they're breaking some of their
main remits in doing so.
Ultimately, it simply boils down to this: they're biased, and the BBC
isn't meant to be biased. It's as simple as that.
seani
You haven't demonstrated your point at all (that's before we get to
there being any substance).
So far you can only point me at the logo on the website as evidence
which, forgive me, has absolutely no need to indicate that streams are
available.
You've shown absolutely no evidence that the logo on the site is
identical to those used on printed media etc. Your sole piece of
supporting evidence is that you claim that you saw a similar logo on
television that you claim didn't have any reference to the internet on
it, on a number of occasions you can't put a figure to.
Let's make it easy, find one occasion. The iPlayer may be your friend
in establishing this.
But so far, you can't provide any credible estimate for how many times
this is shown or in what context,
You have nothing. And to be clear, you have nothing with respect to
claims of bias in the design of logos for BBC Local Radio websites.
I'm not interested in the rest of your diatribe at this stage, one
thing at a time.
Earlier today I fired off a quick email to BBC Derby to ask if they
had different designs for different media, and if there was a
consistent policy across the regions as far as they knew. If and when
they respond, I'll put that response here.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
The point is that the BBC should be platform neutral and they're
blatantly not, and the BBC local stations' station logos are simply
another example of that. To suggest that I haven't demonstrated my
point that the BBC should be platform neutral and they're not is
ignoring the hundreds of posts I've written on this subject before
today, so I don't intend to go through it all again for your benefit.
> So far you can only point me at the logo on the website as evidence
> which, forgive me, has absolutely no need to indicate that streams are
> available.
If the BBC wants to be platform neutral then of course it needs to
mention that the BBC's radio stations are available online as well as
on DAB. What do you think "platform neutral" actually means?
> You've shown absolutely no evidence that the logo on the site is
> identical to those used on printed media etc.
I saw it first on the TV. I do apologise for not having a video camera
built into my head so that I can upload my vision to Youtube to prove
where I saw it, but I can assure you that the logo shown on TV and
that on the website are the same - they seem to be a new style of
logo, and the other local BBC stations I looked at also had the same
style of logo where local towns are listed.
It's probably Tim "honest" Davie's idea.
> Your sole piece of
> supporting evidence is that you claim that you saw a similar logo on
> television that you claim didn't have any reference to the internet on
> it, on a number of occasions you can't put a figure to.
Well, I DID see THE SAME logo, and it did only mention DAB and not
online. The logo is new, but the BBC Radio Manchester logo is shown on
North West Tonight quite frequently when they cross promote what's on
on the radio.
> Let's make it easy, find one occasion. The iPlayer may be your friend
> in establishing this.
I don't need to provide anything to you. I saw the new logo on TV, I
then looked to see if the same logo was on the website, which it was -
then I started this thread.
My claim about the logo being shown on TV is about the frequency at
which hte BBC Radio Manchester logo is shown on North West Tonight - I
was not claiming that I'd seen this logo before - because I'm saying
it's a NEW LOGO.
How difficult is all of this for you to understand, seani?
> But so far, you can't provide any credible estimate for how many times
> this is shown or in what context,
Sorry,but why on earth do I need to provide any estimatese for about
how many times it has been shown, let alone "credible" ones, and why
would they need to be "credible" anyway?
This is a newsgroup seani. This is not Seani's Kangaroo Court of Law
where the one and only defendent is DSWTFM and Seani proceeds to ask
irrelevant questions that only he thinks are important.
> You have nothing. And to be clear, you have nothing with respect to
> claims of bias in the design of logos for BBC Local Radio websites.
> I'm not interested in the rest of your diatribe at this stage, one
> thing at a time.
I have nothing? The fact that the BBC is meant to be platform neutral
and that the BBC's local radio stations are available online is
sufficient in and of itself to require that the BBC should mention
this on their station logos. End of story.
> Earlier today I fired off a quick email to BBC Derby to ask if they
> had different designs for different media, and if there was a
> consistent policy across the regions as far as they knew. If and when
> they respond, I'll put that response here.
I've seen with my own 2 eyes the same logo on TV and on the website,
so it doesn't matter to me what BBC Derby say in reply to you. It's
this Seani Kangaroo Court of Law again, seani. You seem to think I
give a flying fuck what you think - and I especially couldn't give a
flying fuck what you think when I have literally seen the same logo on
TV and online with my own 2 eyes!
Silk
> Ultimately, it simply boils down to this: they're biased, and the BBC
> isn't meant to be biased. It's as simple as that.
No they're not. You have no evidence to say they are. It just suits your
warped agenda.
All it does is makes you look a dick.
seani
> I've seen with my own 2 eyes the same logo on TV and on the website,
> so it doesn't matter to me what BBC Derby say in reply to you. It's
> this Seani Kangaroo Court of Law again, seani. You seem to think I
> give a flying fuck what you think - and I especially couldn't give a
> flying fuck what you think when I have literally seen the same logo on
> TV and online with my own 2 eyes!
At the very least, I don't trust your memory; you've admitted you have
no idea when, how often and in what context.
I don't have any illusions about your opinion of me.
Your point in this thread is predicated (3 times) in a single logo
being used in more than one context and then, given that's "true",
that this is evidence of bias and they are "LIARS" as a result.
You don't have any evidence whatsoever on this specific point. Not a
shred.
Even if you *did* see the same logo, context is important. If it's an
establishing shot of the homepage, you'd expect to see the same logo
for instance.
You fail to make any point worth making, and you are unreliable at
best.
Silk
> If the BBC wants to be platform neutral then of course it needs to
> mention that the BBC's radio stations are available online as well as
> on DAB. What do you think "platform neutral" actually means?
You're starting to annoy me now, you fucking dickdrop.
The BBC provides a very good online service, probably one of the best in
the world for quality content. I'm sure if I took the trouble, I could
find examples of where iPlayer was promoted and DAB ignored. The thing
is, I have better things to do and so should you.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
> [snip standard boilerplate wrt neutrality]
>
> > I've seen with my own 2 eyes the same logo on TV and on the website,
> > so it doesn't matter to me what BBC Derby say in reply to you. It's
> > this Seani Kangaroo Court of Law again, seani. You seem to think I
> > give a flying fuck what you think - and I especially couldn't give a
> > flying fuck what you think when I have literally seen the same logo on
> > TV and online with my own 2 eyes!
>
> At the very least, I don't trust your memory; you've admitted you have
> no idea when, how often and in what context.
This is the last time I'm going to respond to Seani's Kangaroo Court
on this subject.
I first saw the logo on TV, I then went straight to the BBC Radio
Manchester website, which also had the same logo as I'd just seen on
TV - it's a distinctive logo. I had never seen this logo before, but
as it was being used on TV and on the website, I assumed that this was
a newly designed logo for the station. Literally within a few minutes
of first seeing the logo and doing what I've just mentioned above, I
started this thread on here, so there's no chance of my memory being
at fault.
I have not claimed that this new logo has been frequently shown on TV.
What I claim is that BBC Radio Manchester's (and the other regional
local BBC stations') logo does appear quite often on North West
Tonight, and as I've assumed this is a permanent new logo for the
BBC's local radio stations (which is backed up by the fact that the
Liverpool and Birmingham local BBC stations are also sporting the same
style logo), that suggests that this new logo will be shown with the
same frequency at which BBC Radio Manchester's logo has been shown on
TV up to now.
> I don't have any illusions about your opinion of me.
Good bleeding job!
> Your point in this thread is predicated (3 times) in a single logo
> being used in more than one context and then, given that's "true",
> that this is evidence of bias and they are "LIARS" as a result.
As I've already said, this is part of the BBC's overall strategy of
being extremely biased towards DAB and extremely biased against
Internet radio, and it has to be taken in that overall context.
With regards to whether I can prove that the BBC is biased towards
DAB, I very, very, very, very, very, very, very much doubt that
anything I said would ever satisfy you about this or basically
anything I said about any other subject where you're simply trying to
take me to task ultimately because you have an enormous obsessional
grudge against me that has lasted for quite a few years now.
The best example of this was obviously the argument over my use of
that graph on The Register article, because despite the graph being
clearly and correctly labelled, and that what Tim Davie said about FM
not being switched off in our lifetime given "current purchase trends"
*clearly vindicated* the point I was making by using that graph, you
still wouldn't admit that it was perfectly reasonable to use that
graph.
So I have no intention of entering into a protracted argument about
this when past history has shown that NOTHING satisfies you anyway, so
I would simply just be wasting my time.
This is why you're in my killfile, because you're literally incapable
of having a reasonable discussion with me.
> You don't have any evidence whatsoever on this specific point. Not a
> shred.
Other than the logo being shown on TV and it also being on the BBC
Radio Manchester, Merseyside adn West Midlands websites, and if I
looked at other BBC local radio stations I think it's a good bet that
it'll be on those websites too, then?
> Even if you *did* see the same logo, context is important. If it's an
> establishing shot of the homepage, you'd expect to see the same logo
> for instance.
The context when it was shown on TV was simply that they were cross
promoting a programme, so they showed the station logo. It's not
difficult.
> You fail to make any point worth making, and you are unreliable at
> best.
Gosh. That doesn't mean that Seani's Kangaroo Court has found Steven
Guilty of all charges by any chance, does it? Oh dear, how terrible, I
will stop accusing the BBC of being biased and lying to the public
immediately.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
> stev...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
> > If the BBC wants to be platform neutral then of course it needs to
> > mention that the BBC's radio stations are available online as well as
> > on DAB. What do you think "platform neutral" actually means?
>
> You're starting to annoy me now, you fucking dickdrop.
Considering that your sole reason for being here over the last few
years has been to troll me, I'm glad I've been able to repay a little
of the annoyance you've caused me over the years.
> The BBC provides a very good online service, probably one of the best in
> the world for quality content. I'm sure if I took the trouble, I could
> find examples of where iPlayer was promoted and DAB ignored. The thing
> is, I have better things to do and so should you.
This is why you're in my killfile as well as seani, because it is
utterly ridiculous that I should have to answer for my criticisms of
the BBC omitting to mention that their local stations are available
online on their STATION LOGO.
Trying to suggest that if you found a single instance where the BBC
mentioned the iPlayer and didn't mention DAB could possibly make that
quits shows that you and seani are simply obsessional and delusional
fuckwits when it comes to anything I say.
Silk
> Trying to suggest that if you found a single instance where the BBC
> mentioned the iPlayer and didn't mention DAB could possibly make that
> quits shows that you and seani are simply obsessional and delusional
> fuckwits when it comes to anything I say.
I'm not obsessed enough to care.
Like Digital Radio
As there's *obviously* a BBC conspiracy, let's have a look at some
other BBC Radio websites...
Radio 1 - Nothing on the home page, but if you click 'how to listen'
in the footer it says "The easiest way to listen to Radio 1 is through
the iPlayer. Just click Listen live at the top of this page (uses
Flash Player)." - with tabs for other ways
Radio 2 - Home pages header says "Online, On Digital, On 88-91FM".
Radio 3 - Online, On DAB Digital Radio & Digital TV
Radio 4 - No mention how to tune in, except a 'Listen Live BBC
iPlayer' at the top of the page
Radio 5 - On Digital TV, Online, Digital Radio and 909/693AM
Again - categoric proof that the BBC is institutionally biased against
listening online!
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:5c44c691-75bc-43bb...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com
> Oh, he's chirpy today, isn't he?
The Steve-Haters & Obsessives Brigade (SHOB) are out in force as well.
Hold the back page: The Steve-Haters & Obsessives Brigade disagrees
with Steve. This is incredible news, which no-one could have foreseen.
Steve collapses in tears at the thought of the BBC mentioning the
dreaded Internet in relation to digital radio. This means that his
entire worldview of the BBC lies in shatters. Steve is a broken man.
Outsmarted by Jamie Gobshite. Outwitted by seani. Outtrolled by Silk.
Stevie wonders if it will ever be possible to criticise the BBC again,
as they're such an incredibly honest and impartial bunch of peeps.
Back in the real world:
I rest my case.
BTW, welcome back, Mr Like Digital Radio, it's a long time since you
last posted - many years in fact, IIRC.
Have to say that I'm quite surprised that you plucked up the courage
to turn up here considering what's happened in recent times, what with
DAB on its way to FAILURE, then being saved by the Biased Bullying
Corporation-led DRWG's anti-consumer report convincing the Liar
Stephen Carter to set a fabricated FM switch off date to force the
public to adopt DAB even though the public is completely opposed to
the idea of FM switch off.
That's one hell of a lot of bullying and lying your industry is
responsible for, Mr LDR.
And on the subject of lying, I believe DAB's audio quality is
dependent on the distance people live from the transmitter! LIARS. And
apparently it's only going to cost �100m IN TOTAL to roll out the
BBC's national DAB multiplex to cover 98% of the population, even
though I have a BBC FOI response saying that the BBC estimated it
would cost �40m PER ANNUM. LIARS.
Do you not think it would be more appropriate if you called yourself
Liar Digital Radio, so that your name is in keeping with the
overriding ethics of you industry?
Like Digital Radio
wrote:
> Have to say that I'm quite surprised that you plucked up the courage
> to turn up here considering what's happened in recent times, what with
> DAB on its way to FAILURE, then being saved by the Biased Bullying
> Corporation-led DRWG's anti-consumer report convincing the Liar
> Stephen Carter to set a fabricated FM switch off date to force the
> public to adopt DAB even though the public is completely opposed to
> the idea of FM switch off.
Damn conspiracies, they're everywhere.
In your second post you said:
> Same in Scouseland:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local_radio/
> and no doubt everywhere else.
>
> LIARS.
I just showed that on the first five national networks websites, each
with a much bigger reach than all the BBC's local stations combined,
that online has an equal if not better 'billing' than DAB.
In fact, i'd think that as they're all pretty different it show's that
there isn't a co-ordinated approach to the platforms and all of the
different sections do their own thing - though all talking about
online in a pretty positive way. That could of course be a clever way
to the hide evil truth, what with them being LIARS and everything.
Silk
> Back in the real world:
If you keep taking the pills, you may get there. I doubt it'll be any
time soon though.
Silk
> "Like Digital Radio" <likedigi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5c44c691-75bc-43bb...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com
>> Oh, he's chirpy today, isn't he?
>
>
> The Steve-Haters & Obsessives Brigade (SHOB) are out in force as well.
Oh dear, it's "everyone else is wrong" syndrome. Alas, there is no cure.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On 30 Aug, 21:42, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com>
> wrote:
>> Have to say that I'm quite surprised that you plucked up the
>> courage
>> to turn up here considering what's happened in recent times, what
>> with
>> DAB on its way to FAILURE, then being saved by the Biased Bullying
>> Corporation-led DRWG's anti-consumer report convincing the Liar
>> Stephen Carter to set a fabricated FM switch off date to force the
>> public to adopt DAB even though the public is completely opposed to
>> the idea of FM switch off.
>
> Damn conspiracies, they're everywhere.
Don't try to patronise me by claiming that what I say are "conspiracy
theories". Here's a quote from the Myers report, for example:
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world."
It wasn't me taht used the word "terrified" to describe the radio
industry's view of Internet radio - that was one of your own.
And as I'm sure you're aware, the commercial radio industry sent a
letter to Carter basically holding a gun to his head by saying that
the commercial radio industry would only invest the money required in
DAB if the BBC, Govertnment and Ofcom all committed to only pushing
DAB - i.e. if any of those parties suggested that Internet radio
should be part of the long-term plans for digital radio, the
commercial radio industry would throw its toys out of the pram by
refusing to invest further in DAB, thus leaving the government to hold
the can for the failure of DAB.
Then there's the BBC's own examples of extreme bias, such as the
Pathological Liar Simon Nelson admitting that "of course the BBC would
prefer it if everybody listened to digital radio via DAB". And the
BBC's 22 TV ad campaigns for DAB and ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH TV ad
campaigns for Internet radio.
Plus there's loads more examples.
Don't try to patronise me by claiming that this is just a conspiracy
theory. It is a blatantly obvious fact that your industry is
ridiculously biased towards DAB and extremely biased against Internet
radio for purely protectionist reasons.
> In your second post you said:
>
>> Same in Scouseland:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local_radio/
>> and no doubt everywhere else.
>>
>> LIARS.
>
> I just showed that on the first five national networks websites,
> each
> with a much bigger reach than all the BBC's local stations combined,
> that online has an equal if not better 'billing' than DAB.
The only way you can say this is because they provide links to the
streams on the websites. But they can hardly provide bleeding links to
DAB streams on websites, can they, you moron? If they could, they
would, because they're biased LIARS.
And what is shown on a station website is nothing compared to how the
BBC's high impact TV advertising campaigns affect consumer behaviour
when they're shown for weeks on end in the run up to Xmas EVERY YEAR,
which is at a time when 50% of all radios are sold.
And the most recent BBC TV ad campaign for "digital radio" had the
strap line "The Ashes continues on DAB digital radio". No mention of
the fact that The Ashes commentary was also available online, which
happened to be more useful information for the large majority of
people who work in office environments where they would likely have
access to the Internet on a computer, but they don't have a DAB radio
handy. LIARS.
> In fact, i'd think that as they're all pretty different it show's
> that
> there isn't a co-ordinated approach to the platforms and all of the
> different sections do their own thing - though all talking about
> online in a pretty positive way. That could of course be a clever
> way
> to the hide evil truth, what with them being LIARS and everything.
Well, you're right about one thing: they *are* LIARS. And so are you -
because I honestly can't think of a single person in the DAB industry
who isn't a LIAR.
BTW, did you know that it's an "urban myth" that DAB is less advanced
than DAB+? LIARS. And that DAB+ only delivers "very, very slightly
higher quality" than DAB? LIARS.
You're ALL LIARS. It's all you can do. It's all you've ever been able
to do. Your industry has literally failed at everythign else - the
only thing you excell at is LYING.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
> >news:5c44c691-75bc-43bb...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com
> >> Oh, he's chirpy today, isn't he?
>
> > The Steve-Haters & Obsessives Brigade (SHOB) are out in force as well.
>
> Oh dear, it's "everyone else is wrong" syndrome. Alas, there is no cure.
Not "everyone" at all - only the members of the Steve-Haters &
Obsessives Brigade, which of course you're President of.
Like Digital Radio
wrote:
> Here's a quote from the Myers report, for example:
>
> "It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
> internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
> believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
> come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
> window to the radio stations of the world."
If you think the UK radio industry has, within its power, the ability
to stop the growth of the internet and audio delivered over it, you're
more deluded than everyone assumes you already are. If 'radio' was
committed to killing off or slowing the growth of internet audio it
wouldn't stream, make its programmes available on-demand and make
podcasts etc. It wouldn't also talk about this on-air, as for example,
Radio 2 does, at the top of every hour or Capital does in its
production. But you would have to consume some radio *content* to know
that - which apparently isn't allowed in this NG.
> Then there's the BBC's own examples of extreme bias, such as the
> Pathological Liar Simon Nelson admitting that "of course the BBC would
> prefer it if everybody listened to digital radio via DAB". And the
> BBC's 22 TV ad campaigns for DAB and ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH TV ad
> campaigns for Internet radio.
Yeah, because the iPlayer's had no on-air support at all, has it, no
bus-backs, newspaper ads, thrid-party websites etc? I'd guess that
it's had maybe ten times the weight of all the DAB campaigns added
together?
> Well, you're right about one thing: they *are* LIARS. And so are you -
> because I honestly can't think of a single person in the DAB industry
> who isn't a LIAR.
> You're ALL LIARS. It's all you can do. It's all you've ever been able
> to do. Your industry has literally failed at everythign else - the
> only thing you excell at is LYING.
How fair-minded of you.
> Not "everyone" at all - only the members of the Steve-Haters &
> Obsessives Brigade, which of course you're [Silk] President of.
It's amusing you call US obsessives.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On 30 Aug, 22:53, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com>
> wrote:
>> Here's a quote from the Myers report, for example:
>>
>> "It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
>> internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
>> believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
>> come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening
>> a
>> window to the radio stations of the world."
>
> If you think the UK radio industry has, within its power, the
> ability
> to stop the growth of the internet and audio delivered over it,
> you're
> more deluded than everyone assumes you already are.
I have NEVER said that you do have that power. Another bloody lie -
told you that's all you do.
What I absolutely do say, though, is that the UK radio industry IS
TRYING ITS VERY HARDEST TO STOP the growth of Internet radio. If you
deny that, that would be another lie.
> If 'radio' was
> committed to killing off or slowing the growth of internet audio it
> wouldn't stream,
Wrong, because the consensus view is that you *have to* stream these
days. So that's another lie you've told.
> make its programmes available on-demand and make
> podcasts etc. It wouldn't also talk about this on-air, as for
> example,
> Radio 2 does, at the top of every hour or Capital does in its
> production. But you would have to consume some radio *content* to
> know
> that - which apparently isn't allowed in this NG.
Awwww, bless. In reality, content can be discussed anywhere, and this
NG happens to concentrate mainly on the technical side of things.
That's just the way it is, but it doesn't mean that we don't listen to
any radio.
>> Then there's the BBC's own examples of extreme bias, such as the
>> Pathological Liar Simon Nelson admitting that "of course the BBC
>> would
>> prefer it if everybody listened to digital radio via DAB". And the
>> BBC's 22 TV ad campaigns for DAB and ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH TV ad
>> campaigns for Internet radio.
>
> Yeah, because the iPlayer's had no on-air support at all, has it, no
> bus-backs, newspaper ads, thrid-party websites etc?
Bus-backs, newspaper ads and promotion on 3rd party websites? And how
many of those featured the radio side of the iPlayer? None, I'd bet,
because promotion of the iPlayer is almost exclulsively for the TV
streams.
> I'd guess that
> it's had maybe ten times the weight of all the DAB campaigns added
> together?
You fucking LIAR. TWENTY TWO TV ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS FOR DAB ON BBC
TV, the vast majority of which were very high impact TV ad campaigns,
including TV advertising campaings in each run-up to Xmas since 2002
apart from in 2006, and this DAB industry LIAR comes on here and tries
to claim that a few fucking sides of a bus promoting the iPlayer TV
STREAMS somehow provides 10 time as much "weight as all the DAB
campaigns added together"?
You fucking liar. God I despise liars like you.
>> Well, you're right about one thing: they *are* LIARS. And so are
>> you -
>> because I honestly can't think of a single person in the DAB
>> industry
>> who isn't a LIAR.
>
>> You're ALL LIARS. It's all you can do. It's all you've ever been
>> able
>> to do. Your industry has literally failed at everythign else - the
>> only thing you excell at is LYING.
>
> How fair-minded of you.
It's true though. DAB sales have been terrible - are you telling me
that that isn't the DAB industry's fault? Is the UK DAB industry not
willing to take the responsibility for not upgrading the DAB system
prior to relaunching it in 2002? That's the source of your problems,
because Europe was meant to follow the UK, but due to you not
upgrading DAB and DAB using outdated technologies Europe didn't follow
you, and the rest is history. And your industry even had a 2nd chance
to pull DAB out of the doldrums with DAB+, but your paranoid and
dishonest industry even managed to massively screw up DAB+ as well,
and that may well also come back to haunt you as well with the German
decision not to support DAB+.
DAB sales growth fell off a cliff in early 2006, and growth continued
falling from there onwards. But the DAB evangelists like yourself just
stuck their heads in the sand, because nothing changed at all until
Fru Hazlitt dropped her bombshell.
>> Not "everyone" at all - only the members of the Steve-Haters &
>> Obsessives Brigade, which of course you're [Silk] President of.
>
> It's amusing you call US obsessives.
Seani is blatantly obsessed with me, and Silk is to a lesser extent.
Your only obsession is lying to the public and conning them.
--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
Phil
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
> Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
>
> On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at all.
>
> LIARS.
>
>
Maybe they want to inform the prospective listeners of the easiest way to
listen, i.e by switching on a radio. Everyone knows you can listen to radio
online, but most want the portability that real radio offers.
Silk
Apart from Richard "Metoo" Evans, I think you'll find it's everyone.
Silk
> You're ALL LIARS. It's all you can do. It's all you've ever been able
> to do. Your industry has literally failed at everythign else - the
> only thing you excell at is LYING.
You sound bitter and twisted.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:7g1ccoF...@mid.individual.net
60% of all radio listening takes place at home, and a Wi-Fi Internet
radio is just as easy to use as a DAB radio.
You're an apologist for LIARS.
Enjoy the low audio quality on DAB.
Like Digital Radio
wrote:
> I have NEVER said that you do have that power. Another bloody lie -
> told you that's all you do.
>
> What I absolutely do say, though, is that the UK radio industry IS
> TRYING ITS VERY HARDEST TO STOP the growth of Internet radio. If you
> deny that, that would be another lie.
That's handy, isn't it? I'm not allowed to have a conversation as
everything I say is a lie.
Do you have an evidence that the UK radio industry is trying its very
hardest to stop the growth of the internet radio?
I mean Absolute Radio is so against the internet it's striking noisy
partnerships with internet-only audio companies:
http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/08/12/spotifys-latest-hook-up-absolute-radio-and-shortlist-magazine/
> > If 'radio' was
> > committed to killing off or slowing the growth of internet audio it
> > wouldn't stream,
>
> Wrong, because the consensus view is that you *have to* stream these
> days. So that's another lie you've told.
Okay, so if it's the consensus view, that suggests there isn't any
problem with awareness which defeats much of your 'BBC should have
specific listen to the radio on the internet adverts'.
> > I'd guess that
> > it's had maybe ten times the weight of all the DAB campaigns added
> > together?
>
> You fucking LIAR. TWENTY TWO TV ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS FOR DAB ON BBC
> TV, the vast majority of which were very high impact TV ad campaigns,
> including TV advertising campaings in each run-up to Xmas since 2002
> apart from in 2006, and this DAB industry LIAR comes on here and tries
> to claim that a few fucking sides of a bus promoting the iPlayer TV
> STREAMS somehow provides 10 time as much "weight as all the DAB
> campaigns added together"?
>
> You fucking liar. God I despise liars like you.
The iPlayer campaigns have run not only across BBC outlets, but on
third party websites and using signficant outdoor. I believe that the
impacts generated by the iPlayer campaign is likely to have been
bigger than the '22 high impact' DAB campaigns.
> It's true though. DAB sales have been terrible - are you telling me
> that that isn't the DAB industry's fault? Is the UK DAB industry not
> willing to take the responsibility for not upgrading the DAB system
> prior to relaunching it in 2002? That's the source of your problems,
> because Europe was meant to follow the UK, but due to you not
> upgrading DAB and DAB using outdated technologies Europe didn't follow
> you, and the rest is history. And your industry even had a 2nd chance
> to pull DAB out of the doldrums with DAB+, but your paranoid and
> dishonest industry even managed to massively screw up DAB+ as well,
> and that may well also come back to haunt you as well with the German
> decision not to support DAB+.
If DAB sales are so terrible and such a disaster then surely you've
won, then? If it's a failure it makes your bleating seem even more
pointless.
> > It's amusing you call US obsessives.
>
> Seani is blatantly obsessed with me, and Silk is to a lesser extent.
They're just two people that occassionally post on a newsgroup when
they feel that you exceed even your own regular level of insanity.
They're people who you start specific threads attacking in amazingly
strong language. It's no wonder you can see tumbleweeds float through
this NG, a mental ogre sits in his Mum's house shouting at all those
who attempt to drop by.
I'd take being a liar any day over being you.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On 31 Aug, 01:56, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com>
> wrote:
>> I have NEVER said that you do have that power. Another bloody lie -
>> told you that's all you do.
>>
>> What I absolutely do say, though, is that the UK radio industry IS
>> TRYING ITS VERY HARDEST TO STOP the growth of Internet radio. If
>> you
>> deny that, that would be another lie.
>
> That's handy, isn't it? I'm not allowed to have a conversation as
> everything I say is a lie.
You blatantly blatantly blatantly lied when you claimed that the
adverts on buses for the iPlayer was somehow worth more than the 22 TV
ad campaigns for DAB on BBC TV, so if you're going to say something as
outrageously dishonest as that then you're clearly predisposed to
lying.
> Do you have an evidence that the UK radio industry is trying its
> very
> hardest to stop the growth of the internet radio?
Google for the Digital Radio Working Group final report
> I mean Absolute Radio is so against the internet it's striking noisy
> partnerships with internet-only audio companies:
> http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/08/12/spotifys-latest-hook-up-absolute-radio-and-shortlist-magazine/
As I said last night, the common consensus is that radio stations
*have to* stream, so that's just an example of that.
>>> If 'radio' was
>>> committed to killing off or slowing the growth of internet audio
>>> it
>>> wouldn't stream,
>>
>> Wrong, because the consensus view is that you *have to* stream
>> these
>> days. So that's another lie you've told.
>
> Okay, so if it's the consensus view, that suggests there isn't any
> problem with awareness which defeats much of your 'BBC should have
> specific listen to the radio on the internet adverts'.
There's simply no logic in what you've just said at all.
>>> I'd guess that
>>> it's had maybe ten times the weight of all the DAB campaigns added
>>> together?
>>
>> You fucking LIAR. TWENTY TWO TV ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS FOR DAB ON
>> BBC
>> TV, the vast majority of which were very high impact TV ad
>> campaigns,
>> including TV advertising campaings in each run-up to Xmas since
>> 2002
>> apart from in 2006, and this DAB industry LIAR comes on here and
>> tries
>> to claim that a few fucking sides of a bus promoting the iPlayer TV
>> STREAMS somehow provides 10 time as much "weight as all the DAB
>> campaigns added together"?
>>
>> You fucking liar. God I despise liars like you.
>
> The iPlayer campaigns have run not only across BBC outlets, but on
> third party websites and using signficant outdoor. I believe that
> the
> impacts generated by the iPlayer campaign is likely to have been
> bigger than the '22 high impact' DAB campaigns.
What's the point in discussing anything with someone who's willing to
lie in the way you just have? What you've just said is absolutely
ridiculous, and you know it, therefore you lied.
>> It's true though. DAB sales have been terrible - are you telling me
>> that that isn't the DAB industry's fault? Is the UK DAB industry
>> not
>> willing to take the responsibility for not upgrading the DAB system
>> prior to relaunching it in 2002? That's the source of your
>> problems,
>> because Europe was meant to follow the UK, but due to you not
>> upgrading DAB and DAB using outdated technologies Europe didn't
>> follow
>> you, and the rest is history. And your industry even had a 2nd
>> chance
>> to pull DAB out of the doldrums with DAB+, but your paranoid and
>> dishonest industry even managed to massively screw up DAB+ as well,
>> and that may well also come back to haunt you as well with the
>> German
>> decision not to support DAB+.
>
> If DAB sales are so terrible and such a disaster then surely you've
> won, then? If it's a failure it makes your bleating seem even more
> pointless.
Re DAB sales:
http://www.whathifi.com/News/DAB-digital-switchover-may-not-happen-in-our-lifetime/
"The switchover from analogue to digital radio "may not happen in our
lifetime", according to the head of BBC Radio, Tim Davie."
"continuing current purchase trends would not lead to radio switchover
in our lifetime"
QED.
So, until the goalposts were moved when Stephen Carter set a date for
FM to be switched off, yes, I won, basically. DAB WAS on its way to
failing - that's effectively what Tim Davie admitted by saying what he
did. It's also what Fru Hazlitt said last year, but she was only
stopped in doing what she wanted to do with DAB due to the issue with
station licences.
>>> It's amusing you call US obsessives.
>>
>> Seani is blatantly obsessed with me, and Silk is to a lesser
>> extent.
>
> They're just two people that occassionally post on a newsgroup when
> they feel that you exceed even your own regular level of insanity.
Bullshit. You're simply a lurker who supports the likes of seani and
Silk and Jamie Powell constantly having a go at me, because I'm
"anti-DAB" and you're obviously pro-DAB, so you're obviously going to
support anybody who has a go at me.
What you've just said is a totally one-sided view of what goes on
here. The likes of Silk and Jamie constantly try to wind me up, and
seani simply has an obsessional hatred of me, which spills out in the
form of ultra-pedantry when he holds one of Seani's Kangaroo Courts.
They don't "occasionally post ... when they feel [I've gone over the
top]". They post regularly, and their posts are specifically intended
to wind me up. This is not news to regulars here.
seani and Silk and in my killfile, and the only reason they started
replying to my posts more often over the last couple of days was
because I was posting via Google Groups temporarily, so they knew that
I would see their posts - normally they realise that I only see their
posts when someone replies to their posts, and I typically ignore what
they say.
> They're people who you start specific threads attacking in amazingly
> strong language. It's no wonder you can see tumbleweeds float
> through
> this NG, a mental ogre sits in his Mum's house shouting at all those
> who attempt to drop by.
>
> I'd take being a liar any day over being you.
Oh, the feeling's very mutual - the last thing I'd want to be someone
who thinks nothing of deliberately lying to the public to serve his
own ends. People like you literally revolt me.
Like Digital Radio
wrote:
> What you've just said is a totally one-sided view of what goes on
> here. The likes of Silk and Jamie constantly try to wind me up, and
> seani simply has an obsessional hatred of me, which spills out in the
> form of ultra-pedantry when he holds one of Seani's Kangaroo Courts.
> They don't "occasionally post ... when they feel [I've gone over the
> top]". They post regularly, and their posts are specifically intended
> to wind me up. This is not news to regulars here.
You say the nastiest and most horrible things about other people,
continually. You've recently started a thread entitled 'Jamie Gobshite
put up or shut up'.
Obsessional hatred? I think all anyone does here is try to defend
themselves against your horrific constant barracking.
The saddest thing about it all, is that the people you pillory
generally agree with you. You're too busy screaming from your bedroom
to hear anything that might actually be helpful to your cause.
There are no 'regulars' here any more. You've scared them all away.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On 31 Aug, 13:41, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com>
> wrote:
>> What you've just said is a totally one-sided view of what goes on
>> here. The likes of Silk and Jamie constantly try to wind me up, and
>> seani simply has an obsessional hatred of me, which spills out in
>> the
>> form of ultra-pedantry when he holds one of Seani's Kangaroo
>> Courts.
>> They don't "occasionally post ... when they feel [I've gone over
>> the
>> top]". They post regularly, and their posts are specifically
>> intended
>> to wind me up. This is not news to regulars here.
>
> You say the nastiest and most horrible things about other people,
> continually.
Yet again, you're simply providing a ridiculously one-sided view of
what goes on on here. You are seriously deluding yourself if you think
that Jamie Powell and Silk say anything other than "the most horrible
things" about me, yet you make it sound as if I'm the only person that
says anything wrong at all.
> You've recently started a thread entitled 'Jamie Gobshite
> put up or shut up'.
Clearly you're not a very regular lurker if you think there's anything
wrong with claiming that Jamie is a Gobshite!
In virtually every reply to one of my posts he claims that I'm as
thick as 2 short planks and that I'm making up the fact taht I've got
any degrees. Presumably you think I should go "yeah, jamie, you're
right, I am thick as fuck, thanks for that. You're also right that I
did fail the 3 degrees that I worked incredibly hard to get. Thanks
for that as well."
Get real.
> Obsessional hatred? I think all anyone does here is try to defend
> themselves against your horrific constant barracking.
Oh yeah, that'll be why Silk and seani are in my killfile then. Do you
know what a killfile is? It's a list in which you put people's
names/email address whose posts you don't want to view when browsing
Usenet. As Silk and seani are both in my killfile, that means that I
ordinarly choose not to read their posts (this weekend has been an
exception, because I wanted to try out my new laptop, and I hadn't
installed a newsreader on it yet, so I was browsing this NG via Google
Groups where my killfile doesn't apply, so I was seeing seani's and
Silk's posts - normal service will be resumed shortly where I won't
see anything they post unless someone replies to them).
Therefore, as I choose not to read their posts, you can hardly claim
that I perpetrate "horrific constant barracking" of them, can you?
Oh, hold on, you're a pathological liar, so it makes no difference
what the truth is anyway, does it?
> The saddest thing about it all, is that the people you pillory
> generally agree with you. You're too busy screaming from your
> bedroom
> to hear anything that might actually be helpful to your cause.
I no longer scream. I'm the picture of serenity when I post - picture
a buddha meditating with his legs crossed, that's me posting.
> There are no 'regulars' here any more. You've scared them all away.
Gosh. It must all be me then. I really must be an ogre, and the likes
of Silk, Jamie Sweetness and seani are whiter than white in the way
that they treat me, and my view of them being anything other than
whiter than white has been a delusion all along. Forgive me, but I
need to go and cry now.
Silk
> The saddest thing about it all, is that the people you pillory
> generally agree with you.
Correct. Most people on this group agree that the technical standard of
pretty much all broadcasting could be better. Where the sane part
company with Dabsworth is when he comes out with the really mad stuff.
Phil
> "Phil" <philu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7g1ccoF...@mid.individual.net
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
>> news:7ft3a6F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Have a look at BBC Radio Manchester's new logo:
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/tv_and_radio/
>>>
>>> On FM and DAB - no mention of it being available on the Internet at all.
>>>
>>> LIARS.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> Maybe they want to inform the prospective listeners of the easiest way to
>> listen, i.e by switching on a radio. Everyone knows you can listen to
>> radio online, but most want the portability that real radio offers.
>
>
> 60% of all radio listening takes place at home, and a Wi-Fi Internet radio
> is just as easy to use as a DAB radio.
>
> You're an apologist for LIARS.
>
> Enjoy the low audio quality on DAB.
>
>
>
internet radio, all of which cost money when compared to the few quid an FM
or DAB radio costs.
Most people don't want to spend lots of money listening to their local BBC
station when they can do it for �5, with no ongoing costs such as an
internet subscription.
Everyone who has an internet connection knows they can listen to stations
via the net. Everyone who has an FM radio doesn't know the frequency of
their local BBC station, hence the logo.
DAB sounds worse than FM
About 70 - 75% of households already have broadband, and most people
with broadband have got Wi-Fi, so you don't have a valid point, I'm
afraid.
> Most people don't want to spend lots of money listening to their
> local BBC
> station when they can do it for �5,
Er, there are no DAB radios for �5.
> with no ongoing costs such as an
> internet subscription.
People subscribe to the Internet anyway.
> Everyone who has an internet connection knows they can listen to
> stations
> via the net. Everyone who has an FM radio doesn't know the frequency
> of
> their local BBC station, hence the logo.
Oh, fuck off you. Gordon Bennett, DAB supporters don't half come out
with a right load of bollocks.
--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Silk
> About 70 - 75% of households already have broadband, and most people
> with broadband have got Wi-Fi, so you don't have a valid point, I'm
> afraid.
How do I listen to Internet Radio in the car? Serious answers only.
Peter Watson
>
> About 70 - 75% of households already have broadband
>
Currently estimated to be 63%
Approx 76% of the UK adult population have used the Internet within the
last three months and, across all users, 42% have used it for listening
to the radio or watching TV.
[Source: Office of National Statistics}
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/iahi0809.pdf
No opinion offered - Just the facts :)
seani
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in messagenews:7g1em8F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
Absolutely right.
WRT internet radios, my experience has been that once it's set up,
there's very little difference in ease of use / simplicity compare
with a DAB radio.
But it requires your internet connection / router to be active.
And setup is a different story. It doesn't really approach the ease of
setup of a DAB radio, even if it does yield generally better result.
J G Miller
> How do I listen to Internet Radio in the car? Serious answers only.
TracNet 100 Mobile Stuffs WiFi and TV in your Car --
<http://gizmodo.COM/197993/tracnet-100-mobile-stuffs-wifi-and-tv-in-your-car>
Chrysler announces the rolling WiFi hotspot automobile --
<http://www.itwire.COM/content/view/18956/53/>
Chrysler takes Wi-Fi on the road --
Phil
>
>
> About 70 - 75% of households already have broadband, and most people with
> broadband have got Wi-Fi, so you don't have a valid point, I'm afraid.
A tiny percentage have an internet radio. I'd be surprised if it was more
than 1%
> Er, there are no DAB radios for �5.
There are FM radios for �5 though.
> People subscribe to the Internet anyway.
Yes, but lots of them have bandwidth limits that they don't want to
waste/pay extra for listening to radio.
> Oh, fuck off you. Gordon Bennett, DAB supporters don't half come out with
> a right load of bollocks.
Calm down and take one of your pills.
Silk
Hmm.
Silk
> Oh, fuck off you. Gordon Bennett, DAB supporters don't half come out
> with a right load of bollocks.
I'd like to complain about the BBC promoting FM more than Internet
Radio. Shocking. Such LIARS!
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
Peter Watson <pe...@pwatson.org> wrote:
>On 31/08/2009 22:07, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>> About 70 - 75% of households already have broadband
>>
>Currently estimated to be 63%
Is that number of households that actually use broadband or does it also
include houses that could have it if they wanted? 63% sounds pretty high to
me. I know lots loads of people who don't have it.
B2003
seani
I thought this was quite interesting (and relatively up to date)
http://www.broadbandgenie.co.uk/broadband-news/17m-brits-refuse-to-sign-up-to-broadband
I find the bit about some people considering themselves "too old" to
use broadband tremendously sad. Not to say they don't have a great
time without it, but it "feels" like they're being let down in some
way.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
seani <ing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I thought this was quite interesting (and relatively up to date)
>
>to-broadband
That page didn't load for me.
>I find the bit about some people considering themselves "too old" to
>use broadband tremendously sad. Not to say they don't have a great
>time without it, but it "feels" like they're being let down in some
>way.
I guess it depends how full your life is. My mum doesn't even have a computer
let alone broadband. She's simply not interested and leads a happy life without
it the same way others live without a microwave. I can understand it to a
point - despite that fact that I work in IT the internet is way down my list of
home priorities. If I had to make a choice I'd dump broadband long before I
waved goodbye to my TV or radios.
B2003
tony sayer
s.com>, seani <ing...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
What a pity .. the Internet is an excellent resource for elderly people
even if its just used for e-mail's to distant relatives let alone
anything else and more or less any old computer will do!...
--
Tony Sayer
seani
> In article <d16c66be-7073-4ac7-bd76-62c1061ae...@l35g2000vba.googlegroup
> s.com>, seani <ingl...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 1, 10:00 am, boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:42:01 +0100
>
> >> Peter Watson <pe...@pwatson.org> wrote:
> >> >On 31/08/2009 22:07, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
> >> >> About 70 - 75% of households already have broadband
>
> >> >Currently estimated to be 63%
>
> >> Is that number of households that actually use broadband or does it also
> >> include houses that could have it if they wanted? 63% sounds pretty high to
> >> me. I know lots loads of people who don't have it.
>
> >> B2003
>
> >I thought this was quite interesting (and relatively up to date)
>
> >broadband
>
> >I find the bit about some people considering themselves "too old" to
> >use broadband tremendously sad. Not to say they don't have a great
> >time without it, but it "feels" like they're being let down in some
> >way.
>
> What a pity .. the Internet is an excellent resource for elderly people
> even if its just used for e-mail's to distant relatives let alone
> anything else and more or less any old computer will do!...
> --
> Tony Sayer
My thoughts exactly. 5% of effort would give them access to 95% of
what they'd get most benefit from. The rest's all fluff.
I've been through this cycle a few times with my in-laws. Lovely
people and not idiots, but phobic about using even the simple stuff.
Old habits I guess.
seani
> >I thought this was quite interesting (and relatively up to date)
>
> >to-broadband
>
> That page didn't load for me.
>
> >I find the bit about some people considering themselves "too old" to
> >use broadband tremendously sad. Not to say they don't have a great
> >time without it, but it "feels" like they're being let down in some
> >way.
>
> I guess it depends how full your life is. My mum doesn't even have a computer
> let alone broadband. She's simply not interested and leads a happy life without
> it the same way others live without a microwave. I can understand it to a
> point - despite that fact that I work in IT the internet is way down my list of
> home priorities. If I had to make a choice I'd dump broadband long before I
> waved goodbye to my TV or radios.
>
> B2003
This is a quick cut and paste of the text:
===============================
17 million Brits refuse to sign up to broadband
Wednesday 10 June 2009
Three quarters of all UK homes will be online by the end of the year,
according to Ofcom's latest 'Accessing the Internet at Home' research,
commissioned to research firm Ipsos Mori. However, a significant 17
million homes will remain offline, refusing to be tempted to sign up
to broadband. Even more surprising than that is the news 43 per cent
of those 17 million Brits say they won't be persuaded to get
themselves online, even if they were offered a free broadband service
and a computer. They're sure to be interesting statistics for the
advisors behind the Digital Britain report due for publication next
week. They're currently plotting a way to provide at least 2Mb
broadband to every citizen in the UK, and at great cost.
Following the recent Communications Consumer Panel research in which
it was revealed most broadband users consider their connections to be
as essential as a utility such as gas or electricity, Ofcom
commissioned the report to look into the reasons why 30 per cent of UK
adults don't have access to the internet at home.
Although one in five (18 per cent) of all respondents said they were
likely to get the internet within the next six months, a majority of
82 per cent confirmed they did not intend to get connected at all.
30 per cent of those questioned who were not already connected quoted
a lack of money or a lack of access to a computer as being the main
reason for not being kitted up with the internet at home. 10 per cent
provided other reasons for not subscribing to broadband, but a
proportionate 42 per cent said they simply weren't interested in the
internet and didn't think they had any need to get online.
Out of all of those categorised as 'self-excluded', 61 per cent
admitted they had never used a computer or that they felt too old.
Most of these believed the internet to be for younger people.
23 per cent of those questioned for the study were identified as being
'core resistors'. These respondents firmly stated they had no
intention to get the internet and have never used the internet outside
of their home (i.e. have never visited an Internet Café or have never
accessed the internet via friends or family). Ofcom revealed these
core resistors tended to be older or retired citizens.
Speaking on the findings, Peter Phillips, Ofcom's partner for strategy
and market development, said: “Broadband is becoming increasingly
important to peoples' ability to participate in the economy and
society. The research shows some genuine opportunities for policy
makers wishing to drive take up of internet services.” But speaking on
the core resistors found in the study he continued: “But it also shows
that some creativity will be required if we wish to capture the
imaginations of those who have yet to engage with the benefits the
internet may bring.”
===============================
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
seani <ing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've been through this cycle a few times with my in-laws. Lovely
>people and not idiots, but phobic about using even the simple stuff.
>Old habits I guess.
Perhaps they're just not interested. There does seem to be a slight arrogance
amongst some internet users that the net is such a vital resource that
anyone who misses out is somehow leading a poorer quality of life than
otherwise.
Bollocks.
For private users the internet is the worlds biggest toy. End of.
B2003
seani
Well in this particular case, they express an interest, but when push
comes to shove, we don't have much success guiding them through it
all. They'd desperately like a bit more contact with their son /
grandson in Newcastle (they live in Poole) in the form of photo's and
the like for instance. They make an effort to see each other in
person, but it's an expensive business.
I do take your point that it's easy to slip into thinking that
everyone else should be enthusiastically nerdy about these things, but
I think that still leaves a lot of baffled and frustrated people who'd
benefit.
J G Miller
> Hmm.
And did you notice that the first article was dated 2006, and the
two others were dated 2008, so in-car wi-fi technology will no doubt
have advanced further.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
> news:7g2sbeF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>> About 70 - 75% of households already have broadband, and most
>> people with
>> broadband have got Wi-Fi, so you don't have a valid point, I'm
>> afraid.
>
>
> A tiny percentage have an internet radio. I'd be surprised if it was
> more
> than 1%
70% of households have an Internet connection.
>> Er, there are no DAB radios for �5.
>
>
> There are FM radios for �5 though.
FM isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the BBC should put DAB
on BBC local radio station logos and omit to mention that the stations
are available online.
>> People subscribe to the Internet anyway.
>
>
> Yes, but lots of them have bandwidth limits that they don't want to
> waste/pay extra for listening to radio.
When did you actually last look at typical download limits? I suggest
you update your knowledge:
http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/compare/home_broadband/
>> Oh, fuck off you. Gordon Bennett, DAB supporters don't half come
>> out with
>> a right load of bollocks.
>
>
> Calm down and take one of your pills.
But it's true. DAB supporters such as yourself don't half come out
with a right load of bollocks when they try to argue their case. And
that's because they don't have a leg to stand on.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:7g2udbF...@mid.individual.net
> On 31/08/2009 22:07, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>> About 70 - 75% of households already have broadband
>>
> Currently estimated to be 63%
Fair enough. I must've got mixed up with the percentage of households
that connect to the Internet, which that document says is 70%. You
would expect the remaining few percent to switch to broadband in the
not too distant future though.
It doesn't make any difference to the point I was making though
anyway, beause 63% is still a very sizeable chunk of all households.
Phil
> 70% of households have an Internet connection.
Yes, think we astablished that last time. Unfotunatley they need an internet
radio if the don't want to be tied to their PC. An internet radio costs a
lot more than an FM or DAB radio.
> FM isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the BBC should put DAB on
> BBC local radio station logos and omit to mention that the stations are
> available online.
Ah, so it's OK for the BBC to promote FM over internet listening, but not
DAB? Strange logic you're using there.
> When did you actually last look at typical download limits? I suggest you
> update your knowledge:
>
> http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/compare/home_broadband/
No need. I already know and your link confirms that unless your exchange has
been unbundled or you live in a cable area then you are unlikely to have a
big download allowance for a reasonable cost. Even if you do have a big
allowance if you're near the limit every month then you're not going to want
to listen to internet radio and get charged �x per GB when you go over.
The top and bottom of it is internet listening costs lots more than FM or
DAB. It has ongoing costs and impacts on peoples download allowances. Why
would someone listen the their local BBC station online, pay the extra costs
for an internet radio and possibly internet bandwidth, when they can spend a
few quid on an FM or DAB radio and listen forever more at a fraction of the
cost?
Silk
Meanwhile, on planet Earth....
I did try my laptop with 3G connected to the aux in on my car radio and
streaming a radio station. It kind of worked.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
> news:7g51atF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> 70% of households have an Internet connection.
>
> Yes, think we astablished that last time. Unfotunatley they need an
> internet radio if the don't want to be tied to their PC. An internet
> radio costs a lot more than an FM or DAB radio.
People can listen on or via their computers as well - the device
doesn't have to be portable.
>> FM isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the BBC should put
>> DAB on
>> BBC local radio station logos and omit to mention that the stations
>> are
>> available online.
>
> Ah, so it's OK for the BBC to promote FM over internet listening,
> but not
> DAB? Strange logic you're using there.
The issue is that they mentioned DAB but didn't mention that the
station is also available online. FM has never been relevant to the
discussion.
>> When did you actually last look at typical download limits? I
>> suggest you
>> update your knowledge:
>>
>> http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/compare/home_broadband/
>
> No need. I already know and your link confirms that unless your
> exchange
> has been unbundled or you live in a cable area then you are unlikely
> to
> have a big download allowance for a reasonable cost.
Do you consider BT Option 1's 10 GB per month at �7.78 per month is an
unreasonably high cost then??
I would also suggest, although I'm not 100% certain, that your claim
that you can only get the best offers from non-BT ISPs if your local
exchange has been unbundled (or you live in a cable area) is wrong.
The way I recall the situation is that with the exception of O2, all
the other big ISPs offer the same service to everyone irrespective of
whether the user is served by an unbundled exchange or not (ignoring
whether they offer ADSL2+, which isn't relevant to the issue of
bandwidth caps).
>Even if you do have
> a big allowance if you're near the limit every month then you're not
> going to want to listen to internet radio and get charged �x per GB
> when
> you go over.
Do they charge people �x per GB that they've gone over? Are you sure
you're not getting confused with mobile phone networks?
> The top and bottom of it is internet listening costs lots more than
> FM or
> DAB.
Sorry, but that's just bullshit. People pay their monthly subscription
to broadband and they get Internet radio included in the price, so
suggesting that it costs "lots more" to listen online is just drivel -
it's another fine example of why I say that DAB supporters come out
with pure and utter nonsense.
> It has ongoing costs and impacts on peoples download allowances. Why
> would someone listen the their local BBC station online, pay the
> extra
> costs for an internet radio and possibly internet bandwidth, when
> they
> can spend a few quid on an FM or DAB radio and listen forever more
> at a
> fraction of the cost?
Possibly they want to receive:
* vastly more choice than DAB
* vastly higher audio quality than DAB
* infinitely more on-demand content than DAB
* infinitely more personalisation tahn DAB
* inifinitely more interactivity than DAB
And considering that you get that all for free included in your
low-priced broadband package, when you look at it like that it has to
be the bargain of the century - you'd have thought the BBC couldn't
wait to tell people about it. Oh, hold on, I forgot, the BBC are
anti-licence fee protectionist liars. Oh well.
J G Miller
allege lie) to the public.
From <http://news.bbc.co.UK/2/hi/business/2319563.stm>
concerning the merger of Carlton TV and Granada TV
QUOTE
Does it mean the regional ITV companies will disappear?
No. Each UK region will still have its individual broadcasters -
such as HTV, Tyne Tees and Border. They will continue to provide
regional news and regional programming.
It just happens that Granada and Carlton own 11 of them, which
would become part of the new company.
UNQUOTE
We all now know that as soon as they were able to, ITV plc replaced
all of the regional tv broadcasting companies by a single company --
ITV Broadcasting Limited.
No doubt the BBC were under instructions from the Tess Jowell Department
of Culture, Media, and Sport to propagate the lie which Jowell had issued
in relation to the Communications Act of 2003 allowing the merger of
Granada and Carlton, that regional programming was not threatened by
the bill.
Phil
>
> People can listen on or via their computers as well - the device doesn't
> have to be portable.
No, but most people don't want to be tied to their PC.
> The issue is that they mentioned DAB but didn't mention that the station
> is also available online. FM has never been relevant to the discussion.
Why is the fact that they mentioned DAB over internet more imprortant to you
than metioning FM over innternet?
> Do you consider BT Option 1's 10 GB per month at �ｿｽ7.78 per month is an
> unreasonably high cost then??
The BT option 1 cost is OK as long as you hardly use your connection. If you
do any downloading or other bandwidth heavy activity then it's no use at
all. Plus it's only �ｿｽ7.78 for the first 3 month, after that it's
�ｿｽ15.65/month and an 18 month contract, not quite so attractive.
> I would also suggest, although I'm not 100% certain, that your claim that
> you can only get the best offers from non-BT ISPs if your local exchange
> has been unbundled (or you live in a cable area) is wrong.
>
> The way I recall the situation is that with the exception of O2, all the
> other big ISPs offer the same service to everyone irrespective of whether
> the user is served by an unbundled exchange or not (ignoring whether they
> offer ADSL2+, which isn't relevant to the issue of bandwidth caps).
No, this is incorrect. Sky, Be, O2, Talk Talk, all either charge more and/or
offer lower download allowances. In the case of Be don't offer the service
at all if you don't happen to be connected to an unbundled exchange. Sky for
example will give customers who are not connected to one of their unbundled
exchanges a service called Sky Connect (via BT Wholesale), you get up to
8Mb, whith a 40GB download cap and it costs �ｿｽ17/month. A Sky customer
conncted to an unbundled exchange would get up to 16Mb and totally unlimited
downloads for �ｿｽ10/month.
Once ISP's have unbundled exchanges, they make big savings as BT Wholesale
aren't charging them anymore, these savings are ususally passed on.
> Do they charge people �ｿｽx per GB that they've gone over? Are you sure
> you're not getting confused with mobile phone networks?
Some charge �ｿｽx pounds when you go over, some kill your connection, some give
warnings and then kill your connection if you keep going over.
> Sorry, but that's just bullshit. People pay their monthly subscription to
> broadband and they get Internet radio included in the price, so suggesting
> that it costs "lots more" to listen online is just drivel - it's another
> fine example of why I say that DAB supporters come out with pure and utter
> nonsense.
They do, but if they use internet radio a lot they will have to pay more
money for a bigger download allowance.
> Possibly they want to receive:
>
> * vastly more choice than DAB
> * vastly higher audio quality than DAB
> * infinitely more on-demand content than DAB
> * infinitely more personalisation tahn DAB
> * inifinitely more interactivity than DAB
>
> And considering that you get that all for free included in your low-priced
> broadband package, when you look at it like that it has to be the bargain
> of the century - you'd have thought the BBC couldn't wait to tell people
> about it. Oh, hold on, I forgot, the BBC are anti-licence fee
> protectionist liars. Oh well.
Possibly they want all of the above, but if they do they will already have
it. People who have internet connections know all about internet radio. It's
not free though is it. Say you have the BT option 1 service you mentioned
earlier and you use 9.9GB every month. You now start listening to internet
radio for a few hours every day, oops you've gone over your download
allowance, now it costs money to listen. It's never free, you pay for X
amount of bandwidth for �ｿｽx, everything you do with that bandwidth costs you
a proportion of it's cost.
J G Miller
> No, but most people don't want to be tied to their PC.
True -- they (including even President Barack Hussein Obama) attach
themselves to a Blackberry (tm) instead.
Silk
> People can listen on or via their computers as well
I wish to make a complaint about the bias you're showing in favour of
Internet Radio.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
<adopt BBC's attitude when dealing with complaints> You are wrong. We
are perfect. Goodbye.
Like Digital Radio
the Internet because of a logo change.
Back in the mists of this thread someone suggested it might be good to
see how they use the logo in context.
Well, someone's sent me this:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2u469hj&s=3
Damn them being fair to all their platforms!
seani
wrote:
Aha, I was that someone, thanks.
So, the Internet logo doesn't explicitly promote the Internet (duuuh!)
but at least one example of non-Internet use does.
Just as you'd expect.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:f55f1cc4-fa94-4f5d...@e8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
I said yesterday or whenever that DAB supporters don't half come out
with a right load of bollocks, and here's another fine example.
Try to get a sense of perspective on this. That picture is of a car,
and on that car it has the frigging website listed - and it doesn't
even say "online" in the normal BBC branding way, so the fact that the
frigging website is listed is most likely more to do with the fact
that all adverts list the product/brand/whatever's website address,
innit, boss.
But let's just say the Honest BBC chose to mention the website as a
means to improve awareness of the BBC's Internet radio streams (a
preposterous suggestion, but let's just considering it for a moment).
Ask yourself, which has the biggest impact, people who may on the off
chance see that car, and then when they do see that car they'd likely
have to look at the back of the car, and there's only a 50% chance
that they're walkign in the right direction so that they would see the
back of the car (unless they happened to turn round and look at the
back of the car after it's just gone past them - can't ignore that
important possibility, of course).
Compare that with the BBC local radio station's logo being shown on
the TV screen with the FM frequency and "DAB" written on it. Now it
might surprise you to realise this, but people actually look at TV.
In addition, the BBC local radio station's logo is also shown on the
home page of the station's website. Now it might surprise you to
realise this, but people actually look at websites as well.
So, are you suggesting that the impact this car has in terms of the
number of people who'd see it and remember it somehow offsets the
BBC's use of the logo on TV and on the website where "online" isn't
mentioned?
As I say above, this is a fantastic example of DAB supporters coming
out with a right load of utter tripe. The two things above obviously,
obviously, obviously have vastly, vastly, vastly different market
impacts. Yet you actually put them forward as being somehow similar.
If this is the best quality of analysis you can do, and IIRC you
claimed that you were a senior figure in the DAB indsutry when you
first posted a few years ago, then it's no wonder DAB failed in the
market. Seriously.
Then again, all the regulars on here are fully aware of just how much
of a cockup DAB has been from start to finish. But I've made myself
clear on this issue a fair few times, so I won't repeat myself again -
but WTF were you thinking when you didn't adopt AAC prior to launching
a system taht was meant to replace FM????
Grossly incompetent.
Covered up by LYING.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
> news:7g5lq2F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> People can listen on or via their computers as well - the device
>> doesn't
>> have to be portable.
>
>
> No, but most people don't want to be tied to their PC.
Those that don't want to be tied to their PC can buy a Wi-Fi Internet
radio (haven't I already mentioned this?), or they could use their
laptop for listening to the radio at home as well - and when they're
mobile they can use their mobile. It's called the
21st century, although the BBC seems to refuse to acknowledge that
digital radio has moved on since the 1990s.
And considering that we're moving towards "an on-demand world", one
wonders how DAB is gonig to deliver the on-demand world to listeners
when it is INCAPABLE of delivering on-demand streams?
But the on-demand world that has to be delivered via the Internet
still doesn't merit a mention of the BBC LIARS' local station logos.
Oh no. And I wonder why that might be.
>> The issue is that they mentioned DAB but didn't mention that the
>> station
>> is also available online. FM has never been relevant to the
>> discussion.
>
>
> Why is the fact that they mentioned DAB over internet more
> imprortant to
> you than metioning FM over innternet?
FM is obviously the main platform people use. The issue is over the
BBC LIARS once again acting in an extremely biased manner by promoting
DAB whilst not promoting Internet radio, because the BBC is extremely
biased towards DAB and extremely biased against Internet radio due to
BBC LIARS' dishonest and anti-licence fee payer protectionist
strategy.
>> Do you consider BT Option 1's 10 GB per month at �7.78 per month is
>> an
>> unreasonably high cost then??
>
>
> The BT option 1 cost is OK as long as you hardly use your
> connection.
Suggesting that 10 GB per month is only suitable for people who hardly
use their connectino is simply dishonest. Do you work in the DAB
industry by any chance?
> If
> you do any downloading
By "any downloading", you clearly actually mean "if you download many
GB data every month". Do you work in the DAB industry by any chance?
> or other bandwidth heavy activity then it's no use
> at all. Plus it's only �7.78 for the first 3 month, after that it's
> �15.65/month and an 18 month contract, not quite so attractive.
I dispute what you're saying about unbundled operators charging more
to customers on non-unbundled exchanges, so assuming that isn't the
case there's a few ISPs in that Top10 Broadband list that provide
low-cost broadband with what I would consider to be reasonably high
(10 GB is reasonably high IMO) bandwidth caps.
>> I would also suggest, although I'm not 100% certain, that your
>> claim that
>> you can only get the best offers from non-BT ISPs if your local
>> exchange
>> has been unbundled (or you live in a cable area) is wrong.
>>
>> The way I recall the situation is that with the exception of O2,
>> all the
>> other big ISPs offer the same service to everyone irrespective of
>> whether
>> the user is served by an unbundled exchange or not (ignoring
>> whether they
>> offer ADSL2+, which isn't relevant to the issue of bandwidth caps).
>
>
> No, this is incorrect. Sky, Be, O2, Talk Talk, all either charge
> more
> and/or offer lower download allowances.
That definitely was not my understanding when I looked into the
situation about a year or two ago. My understanding was that all of
the bigger ISPs apart from Be/O2 try to provide the same service
UK-wide, and they pay BT to deliver that service to customers on
non-unbunbled exchanges.
If a big ISP is going to promote an offer nationwide, I find it hard
to believe that they would even be allowed to promote the offer as
being nationally
available when a large proportion of households who would see the ads
wouldn't be able to take up that
offer at the prices mentinoed in the advert.
> In the case of Be don't offer the
> service at all if you don't happen to be connected to an unbundled
> exchange.
I know that Be/O2 do this, but I'm sceptical about the other big ISPs.
And IIRC Be/O2 aren't all that big anyway.
> Sky for example will give customers who are not connected to
> one of their unbundled exchanges a service called Sky Connect (via
> BT
> Wholesale), you get up to 8Mb, whith a 40GB download cap and it
> costs
> �17/month. A Sky customer conncted to an unbundled exchange would
> get up
> to 16Mb and totally unlimited downloads for �10/month.
How is the location that someone lives relevant to the issue of
Internet radio anyway? If they can only get Sky at �x/month based on
where they lived, then where does Internet radio come into it?
> Once ISP's have unbundled exchanges, they make big savings as BT
> Wholesale
> aren't charging them anymore, these savings are ususally passed on.
>
>
>> Do they charge people �x per GB that they've gone over? Are you
>> sure
>> you're not getting confused with mobile phone networks?
>
>
> Some charge �x pounds when you go over, some kill your connection,
> some
> give warnings and then kill your connection if you keep going over.
This all sounds very 2002, to be honest. Are you sure you're not from
the Dishonest DAB industry and you're just making this all up?
>> Sorry, but that's just bullshit. People pay their monthly
>> subscription to
>> broadband and they get Internet radio included in the price, so
>> suggesting that it costs "lots more" to listen online is just
>> drivel -
>> it's another fine example of why I say that DAB supporters come out
>> with
>> pure and utter nonsense.
>
> They do, but if they use internet radio a lot they will have to pay
> more
> money for a bigger download allowance.
Yet more dishonesty. You cannot claim that "they will have to pay
more". All you can say is that a certain percentage of people would
have to subscribe to a more expensive package, but when you see
articles that mention the percentages of people that download
different quantities, they always say that heavy filesharers are a
tiny minority of all users. And I would strongly expect (because IMO
the distribution of how many people download how much data per month
would show taht the vast majority don't download much data) that the
percentage of people who would have to pay extra for their use of
Internet radio would be absolutely tiny. Yet you try to make out as if
everybody would have to pay more.
You're just dishonest. Are you from the DAB industry by any chance?
Silk
Ah, but the Internet address is last on the list. This is blatant.
Silk
> even say "online" in the normal BBC branding way
You stupid twat.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
>Those that don't want to be tied to their PC can buy a Wi-Fi Internet
>radio (haven't I already mentioned this?), or they could use their
>laptop for listening to the radio at home as well - and when they're
>mobile they can use their mobile. It's called the
Wow , that sounds sooo much more convenient than just having a little radio
that can run on a set of AAs. Not to mention cheaper!
Oh , wait....
B2003
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:h7nvv8$dps$1...@aioe.org...
Wi-Fi radios are just as easy to use as DAB or FM radios.
Richard Evans
sense to most people than quoting a URL. Many people might not realise
that you can listen online via that URL.
Richard E.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
><bolta...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:h7nvv8$dps$1...@aioe.org...
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:03:16 +0100
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
>>>Those that don't want to be tied to their PC can buy a Wi-Fi
>>>Internet
>>>radio (haven't I already mentioned this?), or they could use their
>>>laptop for listening to the radio at home as well - and when they're
>>>mobile they can use their mobile. It's called the
>>
>> Wow , that sounds sooo much more convenient than just having a
>> little radio
>> that can run on a set of AAs. Not to mention cheaper!
>>
>> Oh , wait....
>
>
>Wi-Fi radios are just as easy to use as DAB or FM radios.
Hardly. How many normal radios do you have to enter a WEP or WPA key into?
And thats once you've got your broadband set up and working.
Also how long would a wifi radio last on a pair of AAs if you could even
find one which used them? 30 mins?
They're not much use at a picnic either.
B2003
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:4a9facf2$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Indeed - IMO that URL is there to promote the website rather than
promoting the fact that you can listen via the website.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:h7oars$qhh$1...@aioe.org...
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:25:44 +0100
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
>><bolta...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:h7nvv8$dps$1...@aioe.org...
>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:03:16 +0100
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
>>>>Those that don't want to be tied to their PC can buy a Wi-Fi
>>>>Internet
>>>>radio (haven't I already mentioned this?), or they could use their
>>>>laptop for listening to the radio at home as well - and when
>>>>they're
>>>>mobile they can use their mobile. It's called the
>>>
>>> Wow , that sounds sooo much more convenient than just having a
>>> little radio
>>> that can run on a set of AAs. Not to mention cheaper!
>>>
>>> Oh , wait....
>>
>>
>>Wi-Fi radios are just as easy to use as DAB or FM radios.
>
> Hardly. How many normal radios do you have to enter a WEP or WPA key
> into?
Entering a WEP/WPA key only needs to be done ONCE and it takes ONE
minute. I've seen a few reviews talk about the hardship of entering
the wireless network key - it's blooming ridiculous!
> And thats once you've got your broadband set up and working.
Why would the owner's broadband not already be working when he/she
buys an easy to use Wi-Fi radio?
> Also how long would a wifi radio last on a pair of AAs if you could
> even
> find one which used them? 30 mins?
Here's the answer someone gave me from Frontier-Silicon (who make
about 80% of DAB receiver modules, and who make Wi-Fi/DAB modules) on
the subject of battery life:
"Approx 40hrs with 6D cells (with switch mode supplies)."
That obviously isn't the same as a pair of AAs, but then again I can't
remember ever seeing a DAB radio that only runs on a pair of AAs
either - DAB is well known to be power hungry, no matter what LIARS
like Tony Moretta might claim to the contrary.
> They're not much use at a picnic either.
Hoooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boltar finally comes out with a relevant downside to using Wi-Fi
radios!!!!!!!
BTW, how many picnics do you have per year? Answer truthfully now.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
>> Hardly. How many normal radios do you have to enter a WEP or WPA key
>> into?
>
>
>Entering a WEP/WPA key only needs to be done ONCE and it takes ONE
>minute. I've seen a few reviews talk about the hardship of entering
>the wireless network key - it's blooming ridiculous!
Fine for techno types like us , not so fine for non techy people. And its
not just once , its every time you update your key or use a different router.
>Why would the owner's broadband not already be working when he/she
>buys an easy to use Wi-Fi radio?
You've obviously never had to suffer BT broadband. A working service sometimes
appears to be an optional extra.
>BTW, how many picnics do you have per year? Answer truthfully now.
Depends on what mood my teddy bears are in.
B2003
J G Miller
> Depends on what mood my teddy bears are in.
Apparently, to keep your teddy bears in order, you need a hairbrush with
very stiff bristles, not to brush them with, but to threaten them with
a spanking when they are sulky.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:h7ofgr$vot$1...@aioe.org...
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:00:14 +0100
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
>>> Hardly. How many normal radios do you have to enter a WEP or WPA
>>> key
>>> into?
>>
>>
>>Entering a WEP/WPA key only needs to be done ONCE and it takes ONE
>>minute. I've seen a few reviews talk about the hardship of entering
>>the wireless network key - it's blooming ridiculous!
>
> Fine for techno types like us , not so fine for non techy people.
(a) I bet a lot / most non-techie people don't even protect their
Wi-Fi with a password, and (b) those that do obviously had to set it
up in the first place, so why would they forget how to do it on a
Wi-Fi radio?
> And its
> not just once , its every time you update your key or use a
> different router.
Every year or three then.
>>Why would the owner's broadband not already be working when he/she
>>buys an easy to use Wi-Fi radio?
>
> You've obviously never had to suffer BT broadband. A working service
> sometimes
> appears to be an optional extra.
When people complain about broadband they typically complain about the
speed not being as advertised, but I can't say that I often see people
complaining about their broadband not working. So I suggest you swich
ISPs.
>>BTW, how many picnics do you have per year? Answer truthfully now.
>
> Depends on what mood my teddy bears are in.
Fair enough, Goldielocks.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
>complaining about their broadband not working. So I suggest you swich
>ISPs.
I did. Went back to Virgin. Still not great but at least the cable modem
doesn't require a reboot every few hours unlike BTs homehub.
B2003
Richard Evans
>
> Entering a WEP/WPA key only needs to be done ONCE and it takes ONE
> minute. I've seen a few reviews talk about the hardship of entering
> the wireless network key - it's blooming ridiculous!
On my Boom Box it took about 5 minutes, because I made a mistake. OMG 5
whole minutes. ;-)
It would still be working wirelessly now, except that I ended up
connecting a cable, as my wi-fi network gets too much interference from
the neighbours. Otherwise I would still be using it wirelessly.
Richard E.
Richard Evans
> And its
> not just once , its every time you update your key or use a different router.
Yes, I'm on my 2nd wireless router now. Over 4 years that's a different
router every 2 years. It's so tedious to have to re enter the key every
2 years. I don't know where I find the time to do it.
Richard Evans
>> You've obviously never had to suffer BT broadband. A working service
>> sometimes
>> appears to be an optional extra.
I had the same problem with an NTL (now Virgin Madia) cable TV
connection. No I'm on Tiscali it is a lot more reliable, only problem
now is that their News Server can be rather intermittent.
Richard E.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
So you never change your key? Hmm , interesting. Each to their own.
B2003
Richard Evans
Why would I need to, I chose something that nobody is going to guess.
Silk
> Saying something like "Also available Online" would make a lot more
> sense to most people than quoting a URL. Many people might not realise
> that you can listen online via that URL.
Don't judge everyone else by your own stupidity. You are in danger of
coming across as a bigger dick than his dickness.
Silk
>> Saying something like "Also available Online" would make a lot more
>> sense to most people than quoting a URL. Many people might not
>> realise that you can listen online via that URL.
>
>
>
> Indeed - IMO that URL is there to promote the website rather than
> promoting the fact that you can listen via the website.
You don't have an IMO. You are incapable.
Silk
> They're not much use at a picnic either.
I don't think they have picnics on Planet Dabsworth. In fact, I don't
think the inhabitants ever go outside.
Silk
I'm with O2 LLU. Best ISP in the known universe. Fast 20+meg speeds,
super fast customer service, reliable and only �10 per month. I'm in a
cable area, but wouldn't go back to them if they were free.
Silk
I'm on Tiscali
That explains a lot.
Richard Evans
Like for example not wanting to pay Virgin �40/month for cable TV that I
never watch.