Brit couch potatoes increasingly switching off telly boxes in favour of YouTube and Netflix People in the UK are gawping at their gogglebox an average of three hours and 12 minutes per day – 49 minutes less than in 2012 – thanks to online streaming, according to a report from Ofcom. The regulator's weighty Media Nations report (PDF) into the major trends in UK television found the number households signed up to …
Ahh but as with all Naim gear, do you then have to add the optional £800 power supply and £200 power cable to get it 'sounding right'?
Like an item costing several hundred or thousands of ponds shouldn't sound right out of the box on its own.
Naim had the 'reality distortion field' marketing going for them long before Apple.
"Ahh but as with all Naim gear, do you then have to add the optional £800 power supply and £200 power cable to get it 'sounding right'?
Like an item costing several hundred or thousands of ponds shouldn't sound right out of the box on its own."
I don't think Naim has ever claimed that. I think it's fair to say that if it doesn't sound right out of the box, no amount of tinkering with upgrades is ever going to fix that. There is a lot of misinformation peddled in places like hifi forums, but it's usually from fools with too much money.
While a beefier PSU can improve things like headroom, other "upgrades" such as expensive speaker cables are complete snake oil. Due to comb filtering in a room, moving your head two inches is going to change the perceived sound more than changing a cable could ever do, which is why people swear they can hear such differences.
In actual fact, the main issue in the vast majority of cases is the listening room. I'm sure that a £1000 system in a properly treated room, which needn't be ugly nor expensive, will piss all over a £10000 system in a typical living room.
Well years ago I was almost part of the sick puppy brigade. Spending a huge chunk of my salary on Meridian gear and CDs back in the 90's.
I used to be on a lot of the hi-fi forums and so often I'd see some poor guy who was so proud to declare he's bought a new NAIM CD player or amp only to be beaten into submission by 'NAIM fanboys' telling him it wouldn't sound good/right till he added the optional power supply etc. etc. Yeah not so much NAIM but the fanboys.
It was behaviour like that (plus the start of stock computer/PC products starting to be used in hi-fi and having the hi-fi voodoo BS and price tag applied to them) that made me move away from all that and get a life basically.
Remember no female has ever said "Oh god you are so sexy talking about your Hi-Fi!"
"Remember no female has ever said "Oh god you are so sexy talking about your Hi-Fi!"
I'm struggling to understand what women and sex has to do with the subject at hand.
I mean there are a lot of hobbies that are traditionally seen as male pastimes, such as messing with cars, building computers, basically anything that involves tinkering. And that's the thing that a lot of people don't get, hi-fi buffs like tinkering with their systems, that's one of the reasons turntables are still popular.
Few women I know are interested in those things, but men do them because they like doing them, not because they want to attract a partner.
"Any old bluetooth speaker can be used to listen to music"
This is the part that really confuses me about "smart" speakers. They're literally just barely-functional phones glued to mediocre speakers. Forget all the fuss about security, privacy, and so on, I just don't understand why anyone would buy something that fails to replicate what a device in their pocket already does. If you're really that desperate to let the likes of Amazon and Google into your home, a regular speaker can use all of them just by running a different app on your phone instead of locking you to just one, and do all kinds of other things in addition. As far as I can see, the sole selling point for smart speakers is "It's like your phone, but more expensive and much, much shitter". Even if you don't care about privacy at all, that's a pretty weird thing to go for.
I think no. "Showrunner" is a type of showman, give or take gender. "Executive producer" is a type of executive. One of them makes shows, and one of them signs cheques, give or take 21st century fintech. A person can do both jobs, and in terms of credit usually does, but one you're supposed to put your soul into, and in the other, if you have one it's liable to get damaged. I'm romanticizing this a bit... a "showrunner" has overall "creative responsibility" but that doesn't guarantee that they personally do anything "creative". There's staff that that can be left to.
"Executive producer" is a type of executive.
I thought executive producer was a way to pay the stars more without pissing off the rest of the cat too much. And to keep them onboard after series 4 finishes with good ratings and they can't continue if the star leaves.
Having said that, a showrunner seems to be different things depending on who they are and the show they are "running". In the bets cases, they seem to be producer/writer/general boss and maybe even director, or at least do parts of those jobs.
"But traditional broadcasters still have a vital role to play, producing the kind of brilliant UK programmes that overseas tech giants struggle to match. We want to sustain that content for future generations, so we're leading a nationwide debate on the future of public service broadcasting."
Brilliant? I've not turned my TV on for the past four years. I'd waste far too much time waiting for one of these "brilliant" programmes to come on, to make it worth while. I do use iPlayer, to check on what's available and maybe download a programme, perhaps once every two or three weeks. The bias, the hype and suppression of "unsuitable" news, leads me to seek day by day news from other sources.
Top Gear was amusing entertainment and vicarious access to interesting machinery. I watched all the series over the years.
Grand Tour I watched about 6 and then it faded and I haven't bothered to catch up on any more.
New Top Gear with Matt LeBellend or whatever, I just didn't care about.
New Top Gear with that Cricketer and other northern bellend is not much of an improvement for me.
Top Gear does still have some of that amazing photography that Grand Tour was completely unable to match.
But there are more educational and documentary stuff on TV that I really enjoy but would never have time to watch. Also, for me, there is nothing like live TV when the events are happening as you see them. Same for radio, I like listening to words as they are spoken, rather than recorded replays.
I've found the grand tour to be much better, mainly for the lack of a 20 minute advert in the middle of it. But then again it's easy enough to skip when you never watch TV as it's broadcast.
It's simple entertainment but some of the locations have been great. I really want to go to Columbia after watching that one.
The thing I despise most about top gear is they seem to think it's funny to bully the small clever guy who knows what he's talking about. First they made Joey off friends the bully and now they have two of them. Not exactly a great message.
I'm sort of glad that Grand Tour is finished. The first couple of episodes were reasonably good. But they just kept re-hashing the same old jokes - sabotaging each other's vehicles, doing stupid things, where you could see the punchline before they even started with the joke.
The last season was pretty embarrassing. It took me ages to actually get through it, because I'd start with an episode, find it too banal, them come back to it a couple of weeks later, watch another 10 minutes and so on.
The Jim Clark episode was a real highlight. Wheelspinning through a vegetable garden, not so much... The Columbia episode could have been great, but it was just rehashed kindergarten idiocy with some breathtaking scenery.
Pedant alert: "Colombia" is in South America, and is where the Grand Tour ep was set. There are various "Columbias", mostly in North America, or maybe it refers to the suburb of the idyllic town of Washington in Tyne & Wear.
(Alright, maybe not "idyllic" per se ...)
</pedant>
"Brilliant? I've not turned my TV on for the past four years. I'd waste far too much time waiting for one of these "brilliant" programmes to come on, to make it worth while."
To which do you compare the British TV content you so much dislike?
In my mind,
- the BBC/Attenborough nature documentaries are second to none.
- BBC Horizon and Panorama have often good content.
- Black Mirror (Channel4) was great, but lost something when Netflix started to produce it. (YMMV)
- I watch the occasional Graham Norton or QI episode and they're just as entertaining as American shows. (less low brow though)
Every channel has garbage content as well, the aforementioned Channel4 is rife with it.
"leads me to seek day by day news from other sources."
Which sources? Come on, list them.
I really don't watch British news at all for the simple fact that I'm not British and I don't live there...
I might agree with you on the early Attenborough films, but the later years are full of environmental claptrap. As someone with a scientific bent, much of the latest is unsubstantiated doctrine rather than established fact. it's a shame, I did rather like him when he was just showing us the marvels of nature. Horizon, I gave up watching many years ago when it became dumbed down, less information and more ostentatious display. If you put on a science programme, I'd expect to come away knowing more about the subject, rather than just being impressed with the camera work, the graphics and the music.
"Horizon, I gave up watching many years ago when it became dumbed down, less information and more ostentatious display. If you put on a science programme, I'd expect to come away knowing more about the subject, rather than just being impressed with the camera work, the graphics and the music."
I partly agree.
I'm just watching The Planets documentary series with my kid (7yo) and I approve the content very much. Yeah, it's got impressive visuals but that's not a hindrance. BBC production, though not part of Horizon.
The problem with BBC is that they're expected to keep the standards high (with Symphony orchestra etc), yet at the same time they need to justify their existence / the TV license when many people are turning into (paid) streaming.
BBC science and nature documentaries have declined in bitrate in the last couple of decades to the point where I couldn't watch them live any longer, the urge to FF through the filler is too strong.
I don't watch soaps or reality TV, and, recently, even the drama has started to test my patience. The little sport I'd like to watch has been on satellite for a decade or more.
Couldn't see the point in sticking with it.
Radio's going the same way. If I want to listen to music, there's the stuff I own, and plenty of opportunities to stream to listen to new stuff. So, no R1, R2, R3, R5. News, current affairs from R4. Occasional drama. But there's little that's worth the time and the 'Sounds' app is *still* not as good as the iPlayer Radio.
To me, the BBC isn't quite dead, but it gets a little closer every year....
the BBC isn't quite dead, but it gets a little closer every year
Sadly true. The other evening their three TV channels offered the choice of sport, more sport and antique Top of the Pops. And if you're a heretic that's not really that interested in wildlife, it's slim pickings.
I used to have great respect for BBC News, but lately they seem to be mostly interested in telling you that the world's going to ruin and it's all your fault. Their Holy Grail is a major disaster that they can attribute to Brexit and global warming.
So what you're saying is that you DO watch content produced by the "traditional broadcasters", but only on iPlayer.
Sorry but I'm struggling to follow your point here. Just because you don't watch something live doesn't mean you're not consuming the content.
And my next post will contain even more negatives in the one sentence.
So what you're saying is that you DO watch content produced by the "traditional broadcasters", but only on iPlayer.
Sorry but I'm struggling to follow your point here. Just because you don't watch something live doesn't mean you're not consuming the content.
Ahh! As the old saying goes, "Hope springs eternal", But eating the meal after the first taste, is something I'd only do if I liked the taste. Unfortunately, few programmes get by the first, or even the second taste
My TV is used a lot. Every day. It is on for quite a few hours per day.
So what does it get used for?
Day time gumpf my wife likes.
Me however, I watch up to 2 hours a day of TV, 90% of the time recorded, mainly BBC1 2 4 or C4, if not watching and want background noise BBC News 24.
But then I will also use the same TV to watch streaming TV, I really enjoyed Good Omens recently, and as a CHM fan The Grand Tour of course.
But the streaming box also has another trick, it does games, so I shoot aliens in the face more than I watch TV.
My TV gets plenty of use, just not all broadcast TV.
I have seen some brilliant stuff on BBC recently, but most of it is CBeebies stuff*! It is rarely watched live (Iplayer or recorded, generally), but "Sarah and Duck" and "Hey Duggee!" are absolutely brilliant.
I've also just finished watching the series of "What we do in the Shadows", which was quite good, but that is an exception these days (on any channel/platform.
*Three-year-olds at home.
It's a little more complex than that and tied to pension credits which are determined by what you get from your state and/or private pension so you can't dismiss it as some attack on the Tories or the BBC. A lot of pensioners don't claim pension credit because it's not in the governments interest to let them know they are entitled to it so they don't get a free licence and those are the ones that will suffer.
Ditched TV License about 2 years ago, and subsist on Prime and Netflix for the little I want to watch.
Can't say I miss much of BBC TV or commercial channels except occasional docs, rarely drama and some of the news/political coverage. I'd rather pay for the Economist.
Can't see anything is likely to make me pay for a TV License again.
I use In Our Time to go to sleep. Just find an episode you have no interest in (for me it was Lorca, but Bergson and Time was also good) and drift off
Anon: I would not like to upset Melvyn Bragg, as his calm tone of voice is part of the reason I drift off
Got Virgin ? Still need to pay extra for Netflix.
Got Virgin *and* Netflix, still need to pay for Amazon.
Got Virgin *and* Netflix *and* Amazon, still need to pay for Sky Atlantic
and so on.
All dipping their beak in for £15/month (or whatever).
I notice only this week a new bunch of clowns "Nextup comedy" that I can get via Amazon for an extra ... £3.50 month.
Luckily I can't stand sport, so haven't been repeatedly bumraped by the fragmentation of the sports channels.
The problem with Virgin is that there is still precious little worth viewing, even with dozens of channels. If you could choose for just the watchable channels, that would be great - but the scrotes have made sure that you have to pay for an entire 'package' just to get one channel that you like. I'm sure Sky is pretty much the same as well.
With Virgin it's cheaper to get a package with TV than it is to get broadband on its own. I did once use my TiVo box but the new one just sits there switched off. A pi3 with osmc has rendered it worthless.
I have Amazon because the wife spends her life shopping on it and Netflix mostly for a couple of series although I keep meaning to get rid.
The rest is get_iplayer and torrents of stuff I can probably get through the subscriptions but can't be arsed looking for. (And avoids the crappy connectivity issues)
"Plus Virginmedia are putting the bill up by £3.50 a month from 1st October..."
That might depend what package you're on. Mine is going up by a full fiver - which is a bit of a kick in the teeth given my ongoing (now six month old) complaint with them, and about which I'm told - yet again - that someone will be in touch soon.
The problem is the telephone line - or lack of one, though I do have one according to my contract (and, yes, I know it's cheaper with the mythical telephone line than without).
"I notice only this week a new bunch of clowns "Nextup comedy" that I can get via Amazon for an extra ... £3.50 month."
I only just noticed the Amazon "channel" on Virgin. At first I was interested because unlike Netflix, they let you browse through the content to let you decide if it's worth it. But it all got too confusing as far as I'm concerned. Everything is in horizontally scrolling "video wall" format, no option to switch the textual channel list so it takes ages to scroll through and harder to identify programmes (unless you already know them) because you have to spend time identifying the image, then the title and typeface to take in the actual name of the show. And then there many, many rows of varying type, none of which appeared to be sensible thins like genres, just "recommended", what people are watching" etc and then I noticed as I scrolled down, many "channels" not included, all of which were £2,£3 £4 extra per month, or entire rows of shows or "box sets" you buy or "rent" for only 24 hours.
Not only was it way too much and too complex to take in, but it's clearly designed to get you to subscribe/pay for much more than any simple subscription model.
Result? They get nothing from me.
I occasionally subscribe to Netflix for a month or so when there's enough there to justify it, but their Virgin "channel" doesn't let you in to see what's on offer so I have to remember to search the internet to see what's in the current library. They probably get less than I might otherwise spend by making it hard for me to see what they have on offer.
I find it much simpler to spend a little time once a week to browse the "normal" VM channels and set recordings/series links up for anything interesting and create my own "streaming channel" that a) contains stuff I want to see and b) is in a nice simple textual list that's easy to scroll and read. "video wall" menus are for touch screens, not TV remotes and are mainly to "wow" the masses and show how "clever" the progarmmers/interface designers are.
Although I have access to various video sources I always watch them on my 'gogglebox'. So in my case there is no practical difference between watching NetFlix (courtesy of my Sky box), watching on demand content (also courtesy of the Sky box) or watching a recording (yes, Sky box again).
The only thing I never, ever do is watch live TV.
To me it feels like watching NetFlix is no different to anything else I do. I'm accessing video streams which are stored in different places, that's all.
I haven't watched TV for years but still pay for the license. I switched 100% to Netflix / Amazon Prime / Youtube years ago. I looked it up on the TV Licensing website and it was a bit cryptic saying ' if you think you don't need one stop paying , tell us, and we may visit you and fine you if we decide otherwise ' or words to that effect.
Has anybody else stopped using TV 100% and stopped paying the license with no problems ?
TIA
"You have to explain your setup (incapable of receiving broadcast)"
That bit is irrelevant. You don't have to have a licence to own a device capable of receiving broadcast, that's never been a condition. It's about receiving live TV. Especially these days since any computing device capable of streaming video from the internet is capable of displaying live "broadcasts". Recently, they deciding using iPlayer is also covered by the licence requirements.
If anyone writes to you about TV licensing, you are free to not respond at all. If anyone comes knocking at your door, you are free to refuse them entry. If you do feel you must speak to them, simply say that you do not watch or record live TV nor do you use iPlayer. It's up to them to prove otherwise.
Thanks for the advice all , so with a TV capable of receiving broadcasts which doesn't have the antenna cable in and hasn't been tuned in I still have to pay to be on the safe side I guess.
It's not good to risk getting fines and stuff with my job.
I really wish the TV license was done properly so you subscribe to free view or something with your license details so people like me can opt out if we want to. I see it as a TV tax propping up an organisation I don't want anything to do with. Shame.
"Thanks for the advice all , so with a TV capable of receiving broadcasts which doesn't have the antenna cable in and hasn't been tuned in I still have to pay to be on the safe side I guess."
No, you don't. I don't know what your job is, but I see no risk of a fine based on what you said. Unless your job is so "risky" that even a threatening letter from TVL/Crapita might be a problem.
"I still have to pay to be on the safe side I guess."
Only if your idea of safe is wearing two condoms. If you're genuinely not watching live TV or iPlayer then you don't need a license. Crapita might give you a hard time about it, but it's no different than trying to get a PAC when you're changing mobile network. They'll keep trying to make you pay up, you keep saying no, eventually they give in.
I like the BBC and am happy to pay, but if you're not watching, you shouldn't pay.
You mean: do not watch live broadcast TV. A live event streamed via an online service that's not iplayer doesn't require a TV licence. Otherwise every web-cam since the Trojan Room coffee pot would require a TV licence to watch, which would be quite an infringement on freedom!
"You mean: do not watch live broadcast TV. A live event streamed via an online service that's not iplayer doesn't require a TV licence."
It does if it's also being broadcast "live other than just as a streaming service. That's what the catch-all in the license terms is referring to where to says "live or near-live". If Amazon were to use their own cameras at the footie and stream only to their customers, then it's quite probable that a licence would not be required, although I suspect Crapita/TVL will try to make a meal of that. But I suspect Amazon will simply be buying a licence to stream an existing "broadcast\" because that's the cheaper way to do it for them and profit is much higher on the priority list than taking a stand against TV Licencing on behalf of their customers.
I Filled in the online form stating that I don't need a TV licence, got a single letter confirming it (containing a few threats of visits etc) and nothing since. They are actually welcome to visit if they want... I don't think they would know what to make of several racks of test equipment, various computers/servers and a 1950's Black and White telly.....
A lot of the panel game shows feature comedians and entertainers, who on the whole tend to be rather left-leaning. Meanwhile, the BBC news and current affairs department has had a decidedly pro-government bias to it ever since Cameron appointed numerous people from the tabloids into management positions there. Thus it is possible for the BBC to have both a left bias and a right bias at the same time - it's a big corporation.
Actually, no.
Unlike other national broadcasters ( the Australian ABC springs to mind), which are dependent on government funding which can be reduced or withheld entirely at the government's whim, the BBC is funded directly from the licence fee. The government could decide to introduce legislation to reduce the fee to 50p a year, but such a bill would have a hard time passing. The most a government can do is refuse the BBC's request for a licence fee increase, but they cannot starve it of cash, short of waylaying the Group4 van on its way to the DG's office.
This takes control of the airwaves away from Westminster, which is never a bad thing.
I have a handful of URLs that provide access to Canadian, UK and US radio and TV channels - many live. Several are sent decrypted which avoids the need for finding an acceptable credit card.
The Epic browser provides VPN access to several countries. Even works from China and Russia.
The only 'iconic' dish was from the company that put the 'BSB' into 'BSkyB', and their squariel. Nothing that notable about Sky's own generic small dishes. Still, looking forward to the time when Sky feel obliged to maintain their satellite fleet at great expense, because the clue is in the name, but enough people have moved to on-net provision
"Still, looking forward to the time when Sky feel obliged to maintain their satellite fleet at great expense, because the clue is in the name, but enough people have moved to on-net provision"
It was worth them doing it back in the 1980s when hardly anyone had satellite TV, so I don't think this will ever be a major issue for them.
Still, looking forward to the time when Sky feel obliged to maintain their satellite fleet at great expense
Sky do not have a 'satellite fleet', they don't own any satellites at all. I think there was a time many years ago when they were a shareholder in one of the satellite builders (probably Hughes who built the original Astra birds) but I believe those shares were sold a long time back.
For many years now Sky has been just another TV broadcaster that rents time on other people's satellites. The only different thing about Sky is the hardware it sells and the EPG it licenses to other broadcasters. Most of the channels available through a Sky box are not owned by Sky either (though some are partially owned). The likes of Discovery, Nat Geo etc. are separate companies that, like Sky, rent capacity on other people's satellites. Their only link to Sky is that they choose to pay Sky to be listed on its EPG and to utilise Sky's encryption system.
Sky do help some of the broadcasters with uplinking simply because they have excellent facilities available and it allows the other broadcasters to streamline their operation but all any channel needs to do to appear on the Sky platform is to pay an appropriate fee for a channel number then arrange for someone with capacity to broadcast the signal.
When you tune into a BBC channel via a Sky box the tuner is doing exactly the same thing that a Freesat box, or indeed any other satellite receiver would do. The only difference is how the user specifies the channel and where the receiver gets the frequency information from. Ultimately they all tune into the same broadcast.
Sky has already said it wants to move away from satellite broadcasts and outside of whatever contracts it has in place with the satellite owners and other broadcasters the idea of abandoning satellite use has no downsides. They will keep using them until the number of people receiving their service via satellite makes it unviable at which point they'll switch off the uplinks and give it no more thought.
Ah, BSB owned a number of satellites at first but they were sold off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(satellite)
I was delighted to discover Spotify Premium.
I like listening to music, but I gave up on radio decades ago. I couldn't abide the imbecilic nattering of the presenters between the records, and I'm averse to being advertised at. I'm very fond of Radio 3, but there are situations where something a bit more lively is welcome.
Remember when YouTube floated plans to put storage into the telecoms street cabinets to provide a local cache to YouTube?
That was back when the overwhelming majority of us were on dial up. I certainly was. Maybe 1998? Not sure what good it would have done since the choke point was the last mile then too.
Back when RealPlayer was about as good as it got. And people tried to use it as a videophone.
Changed days for internet streaming...
When we consider the number of "brilliant" programmes to come out of British TV, we should really compare it to other countries output. So, lets compare it to the USA. You might say, "Ah, well they have a much larger population, so they'll have far more programmes". But they don't have a much larger population. It's a large country, but their population is only five times that of the UK, so the number of "brilliant" programmes should be in the same ratio. Taking only TV as entertainment, drama and such, I'd have great difficulty in finding any UK programmes as "brilliant". If good, they're usually a short series, six episodes as max. Lately, I've watched "The Enemy Within", unfortunately axed after the first series, but brilliantly done, in every respect. "Orange is the New Black", with upwards of a dozen episodes per series, which went on for seven years, and got better and better with time. There was "The Good Wife", with more than twenty episodes per series, which again ran for seven years. "Elementary" which has nearly finished it's seventh and last series. The UK's answer to the last, "Sherlock" ran to four series, each of only three episodes, of which only the first series was of note, and the last two were virtually unwatchable. The only series I can recollect with warmth are long gone, "New Tricks", "Waking The Dead", "Larkrise to Candleford", and the ilk. There are others, but they stand like islands in a sea of trivia.
I also am watching Youtube as the TV programs are all violence, and it is wondered why there is violence on the street? Every single program on all the free channels on Satellite was a repeat and about 50% consisted of violence and swearing thrown in. So I watch for example "last of the summer wine", Bless this house", "Dads army", "Curry and Chips" (nicely racist that), and many more, all funny, light hearted and pick up and put down. Frankly stations like CBS are wasting electricity and air time showing 15 year old programs like Judge Judy.
I find most 'public' broadcasters corrupt to some degree, ABC, BBC, CBC all depend on government funding, though the Canadian MSM (main stream media, not men who have sex with men) are way ahead with ever bigger bribes from their government to tell only selected truths as Trudoh (sp!) attempts to remain in power.
The BBC and other UK MSM have been similarly decided not to cover some subjects, possibly following government direction, whilst independent news sources are actively suppressed.
It's unsurprising so many people are now looking elsewhere for news and entertainment.
I have my favorite tunes, but I still listen to broadcast radio. There are still a few stations left that are dedicated to new music by little know artists. At least some programmed stations may have one radio show on a Sunday night that features new stuff. Streaming services just aren't going to do that. They'll bow down to their music publishing master over what they should play and recommend. I'm I the only one that is full up of Led Zepplin, Beatles and the Doors? There's no point in buying any of their albums, turn on any rock station and you'll hear it all over and over and over again anytime you like.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
