Betamax

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48172
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Betamax

Postby Mick F » 3 Nov 2009, 4:25pm

This could still be going strong too!
(Nice bike BTW!!!!)

(Anyone remember these?)
PICT0131_1.JPG
Just popped up into the loft to get it out for old times sake. Still has 1980s dust on it.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
fausto copy
Posts: 2534
Joined: 14 Dec 2008, 6:51pm
Location: Pembrokeshire

Re: Betamax

Postby fausto copy » 3 Nov 2009, 4:30pm

kwackers wrote:
fausto copy wrote:Well that's easily answered.....nearly all the main channel programe are repeats and it seems that the newly-available (to us at any rate) digital channels, just show an endless loop of repeats day in and day out.
Only can usually tell if a new programme will be interesting or not, and can even read the review via the info button. :roll:
I was only trying to say that one can be selective in what one watches, rather than sit in front of the box all day, waiting for something good to come along.
Which is what I now seem to be doing with this forum. :wink:



As a footnote, I can't say I see much evidence that TV was better back in the old days. I simply think as an audience we were less sophisticated. These days TV caters for a much wider audience of varying interests and tastes, it follows therefore that the amount of programming that will appeal to an individual is likely to fall as their interests represent a smaller proportion of that shown.


Interesting point, but isn't it that one's tastes change with time as well?
For instance, when I was in my twenties, I couldn't stand listening to Radio 4 (or equivalent) but now, in my fifities, that's the only Radio channel I can stomach. However, you could have convinced me that I am now more sophisticated. :)

P.S. Given the mess I've made of the above quoted quotes, I somehow think otherwise.

kwackers
Posts: 14302
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Betamax

Postby kwackers » 3 Nov 2009, 4:47pm

fausto copy wrote:Interesting point, but isn't it that one's tastes change with time as well?
For instance, when I was in my twenties, I couldn't stand listening to Radio 4 (or equivalent) but now, in my fifities, that's the only Radio channel I can stomach. However, you could have convinced me that I am now more sophisticated. :)

P.S. Given the mess I've made of the above quoted quotes, I somehow think otherwise.

I'm sure there are many reasons, but I don't believe it when people say TV was better - it just wasn't. Dig out some of the old shows on YouTube, for the most part they really were poor.
I'm prepared to accept people aren't prepared to invest the time finding stuff they want to watch and that most stuff on TV doesn't appeal to them (me neither) and I can empathise with it. But the stuff is there and there's some brilliant stuff too.
Also you're right, we do change as we get older, no longer does the addition of a swear word make us laugh.
Personally I still like stupid humour - just prefer it a bit cleverer than I used to. Bleak Expectations on Radio 4 for example is imo absolute genius! Completely stupid and barking but genius non the less.

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Re: Betamax

Postby glueman » 3 Nov 2009, 4:54pm

I listen to no live radio but a little on Listen Again. When were terrestrial TV programmes as evocative as this? (part two on Radio 3 tonight BTW)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... y_Marking/

thirdcrank
Posts: 28687
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Betamax

Postby thirdcrank » 3 Nov 2009, 5:28pm

Setting aside the technology element of this thread, there are two others which should be separated: the quality of the programme material and how it should be financed.

I make no apology for repeating that when the current head honcho at the BBC was casting his envious glance at the BBC from the boardroom of another broadcaster, he referred to the BBC as a "jacuzzi of cash." No matter how good he is at his job, I cannot see how accepting it was anything less than humbug unless he embarked on a programme of self-imposed swingeing economies. It seems to me that for many years, the BBC sought £££ to compete effectively against the once bottomless pockets of the rival commercial broadcasters who were financed by huge advertising revenues. That justification no longer applies.

The BBC licence fee is a tax on anybody who has television receiving equipment, whether they use it for watching the BBC output or not. While I can cope with the idea of Jonny Foreigner freeloading if they live within range of a BBC transmitter, I find it distateful that people who would never tune into the BBC should be fined and even imprisoned for not subsidising the television tastes of others. If the BBC merits the public money it receives, IMO it should be raised through general taxation. That might align the BBC's costs more accurately with its quality-seeking audience.

User avatar
fausto copy
Posts: 2534
Joined: 14 Dec 2008, 6:51pm
Location: Pembrokeshire

Re: Betamax

Postby fausto copy » 3 Nov 2009, 5:38pm

Just had a quick read of the listings and looks to me like a good weeks worth of TV licence value on tonight alone!!
Ray Mears in the Canadian outback, choice of Black Holes or Mongolia, some good music on Jools Holland and finally the Culture Show.
Thank the lord for BBC2 then.


and yes, Bleak Expectations was a riot last time I listened in, though I didn't know it was back on.

User avatar
Ben Lovejoy
Posts: 1170
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 9:47pm
Location: London/Essex
Contact:

Re: Betamax

Postby Ben Lovejoy » 3 Nov 2009, 5:55pm

thirdcrank wrote:I find it distateful that people who would never tune into the BBC should be fined and even imprisoned for not subsidising the television tastes of others. If the BBC merits the public money it receives, IMO it should be raised through general taxation.

Those two sentences are contradictory. If it's disasteful to make people who never watch BBC TV pay for it, it is surely even more so to make people who don't even own a TV set pay for it?

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Betamax

Postby hubgearfreak » 3 Nov 2009, 6:09pm

thirdcrank wrote: If the BBC merits the public money it receives, IMO it should be raised through general taxation. That might align the BBC's costs more accurately with its quality-seeking audience.


are you suggesting that low income households aren't BBC2 fans? :lol:

i'm all for a general taxation, the TV licence fee is like the poll tax was, ie. not income based.

User avatar
Ben Lovejoy
Posts: 1170
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 9:47pm
Location: London/Essex
Contact:

Re: Betamax

Postby Ben Lovejoy » 3 Nov 2009, 6:12pm

hubgearfreak wrote:the TV licence fee is like the poll tax was, ie. not income based.

And Sky TV is? Or Virgin Media? Or TV sets?

Taxation is there to pay for essentials, it is not there to pay for people to watch telly!
TRICE Q with Streamer fairing for the fun stuff
Brompton M3L for the commutery stuff
LEJOG blog: http://www.benlovejoy.com/cycle/tripreports/lejog/

kwackers
Posts: 14302
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Betamax

Postby kwackers » 3 Nov 2009, 6:29pm

Ben Lovejoy wrote:And Sky TV is? Or Virgin Media? Or TV sets?

Taxation is there to pay for essentials, it is not there to pay for people to watch telly!

I suspect a broadcaster that could easily be switched to state run in times of emergency is probably considered to be more essential than the entertainment channel it purports to be.

Lots of stuff taxation pays for aren't really 'essentials'. Parks and gardens for example, nice to have but I bet the few hours of enjoyment people get from them is massively overshadowed by the hours they spend in front of the goggle box. Public art, museums, the list is endless. Personally I'd have no problem paying for the beeb from my taxes (be nice to get a return for the not inconsiderable amount they take each month).

thirdcrank
Posts: 28687
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Betamax

Postby thirdcrank » 3 Nov 2009, 6:48pm

Ben Lovejoy wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:I find it distateful that people who would never tune into the BBC should be fined and even imprisoned for not subsidising the television tastes of others. If the BBC merits the public money it receives, IMO it should be raised through general taxation.

Those two sentences are contradictory. If it's disasteful to make people who never watch BBC TV pay for it, it is surely even more so to make people who don't even own a TV set pay for it?


Yes and no - (and that's contradictory as well.)

I should have included a more explicit bit about public interest than "if the BBC merits....". If there is a case for the BBC, or part of it being financed publicly, then it should join the other "good causes"* funded by government grant. There are all sorts of cultural organisations funded for the public good, although I cannot think of any in the same £££ league as the BBC. That would concentrate minds, both in the government and BBC. The present arrangement is virtually a dwelling tax, since it is almost universally applied yet the number of sets and their use are disregarded.

* which makes the Lottery a rather attractive source of funds, when I think about it.

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Re: Betamax

Postby glueman » 3 Nov 2009, 6:54pm

One of the things that used to cheese me off was the advertising the BBC embedded in regular programming for their own services. If I watch a programme on a state owned, licence funded channel I do not expect five minutes of what's on later and all the retailing bait that goes with it.
I really hate ads, whatever guise they hide under, and I'd ban child targeted advertising outright.

User avatar
Ben Lovejoy
Posts: 1170
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 9:47pm
Location: London/Essex
Contact:

Re: Betamax

Postby Ben Lovejoy » 3 Nov 2009, 6:57pm

thirdcrank wrote:The present arrangement is virtually a dwelling tax, since it is almost universally applied

It's a voluntary subscription paid by those who choose to have TV sets. The fact that a great many people choose to subscribe doesn't make it a tax or something that should be paid by all.
TRICE Q with Streamer fairing for the fun stuff
Brompton M3L for the commutery stuff
LEJOG blog: http://www.benlovejoy.com/cycle/tripreports/lejog/

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Re: Betamax

Postby glueman » 3 Nov 2009, 7:21pm

Mick F wrote:This could still be going strong too!
(Nice bike BTW!!!!)

(Anyone remember these?)
PICT0131_1.JPG
Just popped up into the loft to get it out for old times sake. Still has 1980s dust on it.

Yes I do remember those Mick, from the golden age when computers were still analogue and each button didn't have ten different functions and a hundred separate menus. When phones were phones, music centres gave you sounds, cameras took photos and blue tooth was what you got from eating Blackjacks.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Betamax

Postby hubgearfreak » 3 Nov 2009, 8:10pm

Ben Lovejoy wrote:The fact that a great many people choose to subscribe doesn't make it a tax or something that should be paid by all.


you're right, of course, but there's much bigger expenses that we all have to pay for, that we don't necessarily use. roads, for example....pollution abatement's another one, as are MPs moats. if we ever get a perfectly transparent and fair taxation system, then your point would have some gravity. in the mean time, a publicly funded BBC would be very, very small fry