Open letter to the BBC - re Radio on digital TV
AWM
provides ? Not content with its very expensive white elephant Radio 5 it
now foists on digital tv viewers more unwanted BBC channels. Please give us
the mainstream Radios 1 to 4 before spending more money on "me to output"
take the lesson from satellite television the more sometimes equals less.
Steve
"AWM" <not...@nowhere.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aojn0o$bdn$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> Why does the BBC insist on expanding the number of "radio" channels it
> provides ? Not content with its very expensive white elephant Radio 5 it
I was under the impression Radio 5 was very popular, please post the BARB
figures to substantiate the claim it is a white elephant? (or retract?)
Dave H
wrote:
According to RAJAR figures on Media Guardian Radio 5 Live achieved an
average weekly audience of 6.7 million listeners for the period from
March 25 to June 23.
By Contrast:
TalkSport had a weekly reach of 2.4 million listeners, up very
slightly on the previous quarter, and increased its audience share by
0.1% to 1.8%.
BBC Radio 2 remained the country's most popular radio station, topping
13 million listeners a week for the first time.
Full RAJAR figures can be found here:
http://www.rajar.co.uk/INDEX2.CFM?menuid=9
Stuart
"Steve" <dev....@spamtrap.org> wrote in message
news:aojnav$n7fek$1...@ID-155449.news.dfncis.de...
And popularity is not the sole justification. The BBC is under obligation to
serve the whole community. Radio 3 has never been popular but provides (for
some of us) a unique service that is unlikely to be available commercially.
Not a white elephant. It is surely right that those with even odder tastes
in cricket, Asian or Jamaican music should also have a share of BBC
transmissions...:)
So AWM - think again. Surely we want the broadest range of services the BBC
can provide - or can find bandwidth to transmit - the latter being the main
constraint on Radio which is comparitively cheap to produce compared with
TV.
Lipsey wrote an eloquent justification for this use of scarce bandwidth
resources in his textbook 'Introduction to Positive Economics' (1963).
Stuart
DunxUK
>the mainstream Radios 1 to 4 before spending more money on "me to output"
Radios 1 - 4 are easy to get in FM stereo in all parts of the country. Use your
tuner for them, not the sodding TV. I'm delighted to receive radio 5 for the
first time without dreadful fading am quality. Looking forward to the world
service too! :o)
Andy Sinclair
complaining about their dire local output.
For example, BBC Radio London achieves a massive 0.8% share of radio
listening.
Andy
Stuart
"Andy Sinclair" <an...@NOSPAM.r2g2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:95qqquc9b5k0r2pv8...@4ax.com...
>
> For example, BBC Radio London achieves a massive 0.8% share of radio
> listening.
Is that in London or in UK?
Stuart
Alan White
>...
>Radios 1 - 4 are easy to get in FM stereo in all parts of the country...
>
Not here they're not!
Our only viable source of listenable quality Radio 3 is via Sky.
--
Alan White
overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
http://www.alan.lesley.ukgateway.net
Philomena
Did you really mean your post as an open letter to the BBC? Does
anyone from the Beeb officially follow this newsgroup? You might be
better off just emailing them directly -- say, to feed...@bbc.co.uk.
John Porcella
> provides ? Not content with its very expensive white elephant Radio 5 it
> now foists on digital tv viewers more unwanted BBC channels.
Unwanted? Justify this!
Please give us
> the mainstream Radios 1 to 4 before spending more money on "me to
output"
What does "me to output" mean?
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
hidesmith
You may think Radio 5 is a white elephant, I happen to enjoy it (News
more than Sport). I never listen to Radio 1 or 3 very rarely to 2 or
4.
Martin Imber
I HATE R1
Andy Sinclair
>Is that in London or in UK?
It's not that surprising really, local radio stations in more remote
areas such as cornwall get good listener figures.
London is hardly suffering from a lack of radio stations though.
Andy
Julie Brandon
>provides ? Not content with its very expensive white elephant Radio 5 it
What is white elephant about Radio 5?
Always listen to that now at nights in preference to WS; excellent stuff!
--
Julie Brandon http://www.computergeeks.co.uk/
______________________________________________________________________________
DILBERT - Season 2 (not the ones on the DVD/Videos)
Late night daily slot on Sky 1 from 10th November 2002
Julie Brandon
>>Please give us
>>the mainstream Radios 1 to 4 before spending more money on "me to output"
>
>Radios 1 - 4 are easy to get in FM stereo in all parts of the country.
Not here they aren't.
Julie Brandon
>If you want to complain about BBC radio, you'd be better off
>complaining about their dire local output.
Derby used to be a bit of an electronic ambient synth new-music new-artists
capital of the UK. BBC Radio Derby used to have a dedicated synth show on
Sundays. These two facts appeared to be very closely linked, as you can
guess what happened when the later show got cancelled without any good
explanation (it was certainly an extremely popular show -- however I dare
say it was perceived that old biddies wouldn't get on with the strange
sounds coming out of the radio during Sunday afternoon, and therefore the
show should go.)
The BBC needs to be MORE of a public service broadcaster than it is IMHO,
and concentrating *only* on the likes of BBC1 BBC2 R1 & R2 is _not_ the way
to go to achieve this.
Ta-ra,
Julie
Colin
"Alan White" <alan....@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:hetqqukbjien2h5r4...@4ax.com...
The reason Radios 1 to 4 aren't on Freeview is that, AFAIK, everywhere that
can receive Freeview can receive the FM services well.
My guess is that you are a long way from the nearest Freeview coverage!
Colin
Alan White
<colin....@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The reason Radios 1 to 4 aren't on Freeview is that, AFAIK, everywhere that
>can receive Freeview can receive the FM services well.
>
>My guess is that you are a long way from the nearest Freeview coverage!
>
There's a hill in the way of *everything* terrestrial.
Sky is our only source of anything, (and this thirty-five miles from
Glasgow).
h
Just to add my tuppence, in my rented flat (rented=no buggering about
with the aerials please) I get a great TV signal but can't get radios
1-4 without turning to mono and sitting in the chair on the other
side of the room. Otherwise I get superloud static and huzzing.
Mmm. I'd like DTT to carry radios1-4...
anyhoo, thass all
xh
DAB sounds worse than FM
"Stuart" <in...@brainsys.com> wrote in message
news:aojoc5$mvt73$1...@ID-65688.news.dfncis.de...
Sod economics and accountants. It's okay for you being a Radio 3 listener,
you get your audio quality in pristine condition on DAB. On DAB *ALL* other
BBC stations have to put up with crap audio quality just because Radio 3
listeners have their audio quality set to high. It is just BBC snobbery.
Accountants have ruined the UK. Without the UK being run solely by
accountants we wouldn't have so many instances of Rip-Off Britain, one
example is DAB for everybody apart from Radio 3 listeners.
--
UK-DAB sounds far worse than FM
Hearing is believing just how poor DAB really is.
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk -- Subscribe for free to the DAB Listeners Group
Newsletter
Digital Satellite is far better for radio than DAB for home listening
Philomena
>It's okay for you being a Radio 3 listener,
>you get your audio quality in pristine condition on DAB. On DAB *ALL* other
>BBC stations have to put up with crap audio quality just because Radio 3
>listeners have their audio quality set to high.
That's interesting. How exasperating that I can't get any of the BBC
stations on DAB here!
AWM
"Max Topley" <mt...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:iqbuqu0l01u99258r...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:45:13 +0000 (UTC), AWM wrote:
>
> >Why does the BBC insist on expanding the number of "radio" channels it
> >provides ?
>
> it's charter to seek to provide programming to appeal to as many
> sections of the community as possible. When new media present them
> with the opportunity to expand the range of choice available at modest
> cost, they're right to take the opportunity.
>
The other name for it is "dumbing down"
Julie Brandon
>> Because, as a public service broadcaster, it has an obligation under
>> it's charter to seek to provide programming to appeal to as many
>> sections of the community as possible. When new media present them
>> with the opportunity to expand the range of choice available at modest
>> cost, they're right to take the opportunity.
>>
>
>The other name for it is "dumbing down"
Spoken just like someone who either hasn't read what is written or/and
hasn't thought about it... and instead just substitutes a generic,
cantankerous, knee-jerk reaction.
If there's anything a tiny number of channels promotes, it is attempting to
serve the majority, and (almost) hence therefore mostly just the lowest
common denominator... aka dumbing down.
More channels, potentially, means being able to serve different content to
people with different interests (i.e. soaps, big-brother-alikes &
changing-rooms/gardens-alikes on some channels as per usual, but however
perhaps entirely other stuff that you or I might actually want to watch on
others.)
Stop being so ruddy grumpy! :)
Stuart
"Julie Brandon" <nos...@honeypot.computergeeks.me.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:slrnaqvese...@merp.computergeeks.me.uk...
>
> If there's anything a tiny number of channels promotes, it is attempting
to
> serve the majority, and (almost) hence therefore mostly just the lowest
> common denominator... aka dumbing down.
I disagree.
Look at the TV schedules in the sixties when we had just 2 or 3 channels.
The serious content was there for all. So if you watched BBC1 you got '24
hours', TW3 etc (stuff that would be hidden on BBC2/4 these days..).
And if you looked at the 'Pop' content - there was some quality stuff there
too..
Remember when there are few channels - everybody has to share the same. So
the pressure of pleasing the critical viewer is as strong as the couch
potato for every programme - unlike these days when surely no critical
viewer is expected to switch on BBC1 on a Saturday night.
It is possible to produce programmes that are superlatively 'entertaining'
to all, but are far from drivel. 'Yes Minister' of 70/80s is a prime
example. Conversely 'serious' programmes had to be accessible to all. 'Cathy
Come Home' in the sixties moved most of us, and was instrumental in
kick-starting the campaigns for the homeless. Wednesday Playhouse was a
highly rated show. Even ITV had good stuff eg 'Armchair Theatre'. And who
could forget that spoof of 'Look Back in Anger' performed at 4 Railway
Cuttings, East Cheam?
Stuart
Julie Brandon
>
>I disagree.
And you're giving a reasoned/logical reply. *8-)
>Remember when there are few channels - everybody has to share the same. So
>the pressure of pleasing the critical viewer is as strong as the couch
>potato for every programme - unlike these days when surely no critical
>viewer is expected to switch on BBC1 on a Saturday night.
Today, if the number of channels were reduced to a minimum again, I do not
even vaguely begin to believe we would see the kind of critical-viewer
programming on those minimal channels that we saw in the past. I would
_like_ that to be the case, but I do not believe the BBC et-al of today
would ever go that way.
Hence my reply that the only way I can see us standing a chance of getting
more thought-provoking programming, now, is by splitting up.
I think there has also been an important, significant, and relevant shift in
our attitudes towards television. I don't think we _all_ so readily sit
down and watch whatever is put in front of us anymore, I think we're making
much more active choices than we did (at least, the younger part of the
generation anyway) -- this in particular does not sit well with a reduced
number of channels, but instead fits in with a _greater_ selection of
channels (including, shock horror, repeats & time-shift channnels, both of
which very very much have their place IMHO.)
Ta-ra,
Stuart
"Julie Brandon" <nos...@honeypot.computergeeks.me.uk.invalid> wrote in
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:43:39 +0100, Stuart (in...@brainsys.com) said:
> >
> >I disagree.
>
> And you're giving a reasoned/logical reply. *8-)
>
> >Remember when there are few channels - everybody has to share the same.
So
> >the pressure of pleasing the critical viewer is as strong as the couch
> >potato for every programme - unlike these days when surely no critical
> >viewer is expected to switch on BBC1 on a Saturday night.
>
> Today, if the number of channels were reduced to a minimum again, I do not
> even vaguely begin to believe we would see the kind of critical-viewer
> programming on those minimal channels that we saw in the past. I would
> _like_ that to be the case, but I do not believe the BBC et-al of today
> would ever go that way.
I wouldn't want to go back either - and I suspect you may be right.
In another media - newspapers - we have roughly the same number of titles as
in the sixties. But look how the content has changed. The Daily Mail & Daily
Express (the highest selling daily) were semi-serious (about where the Daily
Telegraph is now). There was nothing like 'The Sun'.
I know this (and the sixties TV schedules) because we recently recovered a
load of newspapers used as padding....but I digress.
So the number of channels probably has a smaller impact on the quality of
content than the expectations of the viewers/attitude of providers.
In the sixties both viewers, readers and providers felt the media ought to
have some measure of 'improvement' in the material. Today a BBC producer
would call that elitist and you can't just blame them when the majority of
viewers choose tabloid journalism and expect their entertainment to match.
So us critical viewers are marginalised into a R3/4, BBC2/4 world where the
accountants rightly point out we are getting more than a fair share of
licence money and folks in alt.radio.digital would say bandwidth :(
Stuart
Steve
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote
in message > Sod economics and accountants. It's okay for you being a Radio
3 listener,
> you get your audio quality in pristine condition on DAB. On DAB *ALL*
other
> BBC stations have to put up with crap audio quality just because Radio 3
> listeners have their audio quality set to high. It is just BBC snobbery.
FFS, this must be you 10,000th post on this topic, give it a break.
If people are intested in your rantings they can subscribe to your list that
you spam/advertise
Steve
Err, I did ask what evidence you had the r5 is a white elephant, I am still
waiting.
AWM
Widely addmitted unofficially in BBC circles and constant topic of
discusion on programs like "Feedback".
Radio audience are particularly misleading as people tend to dip in and out
of radio particularly in durring car journeys.
>
>
>
Steve
>
> "Steve" <dev....@spamtrap.org> wrote in message
> news:aoonh4$opkak$1...@ID-155449.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "AWM" <not...@nowhere.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:aoocqt$298$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Max Topley" <mt...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:iqbuqu0l01u99258r...@4ax.com...
> > > > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:45:13 +0000 (UTC), AWM wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Why does the BBC insist on expanding the number of "radio"
channels
> it
> > > > >provides ?
> > > >
> > > > Because, as a public service broadcaster, it has an obligation under
> > > > it's charter to seek to provide programming to appeal to as many
> > > > sections of the community as possible. When new media present them
> > > > with the opportunity to expand the range of choice available at
modest
> > > > cost, they're right to take the opportunity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The other name for it is "dumbing down"
> > >
> > >
> > So it should appeal to you then.
> >
> > Err, I did ask what evidence you had the r5 is a white elephant, I am
> still
> > waiting.
> >
>
> Widely addmitted unofficially in BBC circles and constant topic of
Hearsay then
> discusion on programs like "Feedback".
> Radio audience are particularly misleading as people tend to dip in and
out
> of radio particularly in durring car journeys.
Err, Mr Roger Irrelevant. If people tune in to R5 rather than another
station then clearly that is a choice. Are you saying that car radios come
pre-tuned to R5 and they cannot tune to something else.
The fact that R5 audence is increasing is also relevant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/08_august/01/raj
ar_main.shtml
Julie Brandon
>
>Widely addmitted unofficially in BBC circles and constant topic of
>discusion on programs like "Feedback".
Regular listener to R4's feedback. Never heard R5 referred to as anything
like a white elephant, sorry.
Ta-ra,
Julie
Stuart
"Julie Brandon" <nos...@honeypot.computergeeks.me.uk.invalid> wrote in
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:33:27 +0000 (UTC), AWM
(not...@nowhere.freeserve.co.uk) said:
> >
> >Widely addmitted unofficially in BBC circles and constant topic of
> >discusion on programs like "Feedback".
>
> Regular listener to R4's feedback. Never heard R5 referred to as anything
> like a white elephant, sorry.
And to a BBC staffer - any service which competes for his budget is:
1) White Middle Class Elitist or
2) Dumbed Down Populist or
3) Just a White Elephant
Actually R5's major problem is being marooned out on AM. A place we had been
educated by the BBC never to visit again. Maybe the advent of digital
platforms will begin to place it on equal footing so it lives, or dies, by
content rather than delivery...
Stuart
Julie Brandon
>
>Actually R5's major problem is being marooned out on AM. A place we had been
>educated by the BBC never to visit again. Maybe the advent of digital
>platforms will begin to place it on equal footing so it lives, or dies, by
>content rather than delivery...
Good point. Ultimately, my interest with 5 Live really started when we got
digital satellite, wouldn't usually touch AM for non-DX listening with a
barge-pole.
Llandrovers!
Stuart
"Llandrovers!" <lland...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c12db1ee.02101...@posting.google.com...
> Hear here - in rural Wales its hard to get a good FM signal either./...
I drive regulary from London to just beyond Synod's Inn. Usually R4 all the
way. Only dodgy places is a valley 5 miles north of Carmarthen and under
under the Hammersmith Flyover :)
Rural Wales is a big place!
Stuart