|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340036 is a reply to message #340026] |
Wed, 22 March 2017 19:14   |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> LIFE magazine reported on the commercial debut of TV in 1939 (see
> link below). Some of the information is technical, which may be
> of interest here.
>
> Sets sold from $200 to $1000 (1939 dollars). A TV station would
> have to spend $250,000, then times that of radio, for a transmitter.
> Transmitters were limited to 50 miles, limiting the size of audience.
> The behavior of the electrons was not fully understood.
>
Of course they were.
But since tv signals were 6MHz wide, they couldn't be down with the rest
of the signals. Until 1921, the frequencies above the top of the current
Am broadcast band were deemed "useless". So "0" to 1.6MHz would never fit
a 6MHz signal. The VHF frequencies were there for experimental purposes.
The FM broadcast band, started about the same time, was something like 44
to 50MHz, just below what would be tv channel 2. The limits were known,
Howard Armstrong networked his chain of FM broadcast stations by placing
them close enough so the signal from the next one over could be used as
the source for the "local" transmitter, no need for a separate network to
distribute the contents.
After WWII, things were rearranged, FM going to 88 to 108MHz, where it
still is, losing that ability to network. It also meant users either had
to buy new FM receivers, or buy a converter to reuse the old. TV got some
shifting too, including the loss of CHannel 1.
I would argue local tv stations liked being the only game in town. Even
today, when so many AM stations air syndicated shows overnight, they all
want it because it's cheap and they don't have to create programming, but
they can sell to local advertisers. The same was likely true of TV in the
early days, coverage was limited, but viewers couldn't easily listen to
the next market, which is the case with AM to this day.
People wanted more channels, which of course caused "CATV" to start up, so
isntead of everyone buying their own tower and antenna to get a distant
station, one big tower would go up along with a big antenna, and everyone
would share the signal. One can argue that cable has taken a life of its
own, not just offering over the air signals, but all the extra
programming.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340037 is a reply to message #340036] |
Wed, 22 March 2017 19:23 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 7:06:54 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
> After WWII, things were rearranged, FM going to 88 to 108MHz, where it
> still is, losing that ability to network. It also meant users either had
> to buy new FM receivers, or buy a converter to reuse the old. TV got some
> shifting too, including the loss of CHannel 1.
According to NYT articles at the time, the set manufacturers were
willing to adjust the TV sets at no charge. There weren't that many
sets out there, and presumably the manufacturers wanted to preserve
the goodwill of people who paid a lot of money for their sets so as
to attract new customers.
I don't know how owners of FM radio sets were accomodated. In the 1940s,
radio makers did offer FM sets.
Today in histories, there's a lot of talk that TV in 1948 was so new
no one knew what to expect. But even during the war years television
was big news--lots of articles, lots of ads, lots of business interest.
They even had schools to train TV repairmen during the war.
> I would argue local tv stations liked being the only game in town. Even
> today, when so many AM stations air syndicated shows overnight, they all
> want it because it's cheap and they don't have to create programming, but
> they can sell to local advertisers. The same was likely true of TV in the
> early days, coverage was limited, but viewers couldn't easily listen to
> the next market, which is the case with AM to this day.
Sylvester "Pat" Weaver wrote a good book about the early years of TV,
including about sponsors and networks. I think even in radio there was
always "a dance" between a local station and the national network over
the terms of network shows and affiliation. However, even in radio, the
networks had far more resources to develop attractive programming to get
a large audience, an ability most local stations couldn't match. The
costs of producing a show (radio or TV) with topflight actors would be
too high for a single station--anetowrk allowed the costs to be spread
over a wide base. Note that in a network show, some commercials are
national while some are local, and I think it was always like that.
> People wanted more channels, which of course caused "CATV" to start up, so
> isntead of everyone buying their own tower and antenna to get a distant
> station, one big tower would go up along with a big antenna, and everyone
> would share the signal. One can argue that cable has taken a life of its
> own, not just offering over the air signals, but all the extra
> programming.
As I understand it, CATV was developed in remote places that couldn't
get _any_ television. As to the desire for more channels, in the 1960s
independent local stations sprung up, often using UHF, and depending
heavilly on syndicated fare.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340055 is a reply to message #340037] |
Thu, 23 March 2017 03:52 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <5b1bd3a6-14e8-4f19-985d-7b5336405c2c@googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 7:06:54 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> After WWII, things were rearranged, FM going to 88 to 108MHz, where it
>> still is, losing that ability to network. It also meant users either had
>> to buy new FM receivers, or buy a converter to reuse the old. TV got some
>> shifting too, including the loss of CHannel 1.
>
>> People wanted more channels, which of course caused "CATV" to start up, so
>> isntead of everyone buying their own tower and antenna to get a distant
>> station, one big tower would go up along with a big antenna, and everyone
>> would share the signal. One can argue that cable has taken a life of its
>> own, not just offering over the air signals, but all the extra
>> programming.
>
> As I understand it, CATV was developed in remote places that couldn't
> get _any_ television. As to the desire for more channels, in the 1960s
> independent local stations sprung up, often using UHF, and depending
> heavilly on syndicated fare.
CATV wasn't, in the first years. It was "antenna coops", because you
couldn't sell the signal commercially. This was released sometime between
1972 and 1986 depending on the jurisdiction. The CATV business had a
strange set of people, coming up with an industry that wasn't supposed
to exist.
Getting other area's signals was a huge thing in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Then, when they were fully commercial ca 1983-86 they could also
offer programming; but never directly in most jurisdictions. The lawmakers
saw to it that there were no information monopolies, but they could
have cable-only stations, or almost-cable-only, feeding only directly
through some feeble transmitter in the boonies.
Then satellite TV took off. Sky channel in 1984 lifted that bar in
Europe. They depended on the CATV operators to distribute, because they
came on a satellite that required quite heavy reception equipment, so
they were made for the cable world as yet-another-channel.
Amazingly, they are still on the air. Same program too,
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340056 is a reply to message #340055] |
Thu, 23 March 2017 05:56 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:52:55 +0100
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> Then satellite TV took off. Sky channel in 1984 lifted that bar in
> Europe. They depended on the CATV operators to distribute, because they
> came on a satellite that required quite heavy reception equipment, so
> they were made for the cable world as yet-another-channel.
Sky channel evolved into BSkyB over the years (after a merger with
BSB). In the UK and Ireland most houses have a Sky dish (an oval off-centre
parabolic dish about 60cm across these days) which directly picks up their
signal from the Astra 2 group of satellites.
Their sales strategy is simple and effective, free installation,
free equipment and a contract - usually with an initial discount on the
subscription. Also a permanent presence (usually a highly visible stand
rather than a shop) in most large shopping centres backed by franchised
installers everywhere. If you choose to end your subscription they'll be
writing to you for a couple of years with deals to entice you to return.
They never needed cable TV operators in the UK and Ireland for
distribution - but they do sell content to them, but they're way more than
just another channel.
Originally in the UK there was BSB using a panel aerial (dubbed the
squarial) and Sky using a round dish a little bigger than the current oval
dish. Neither did well in the early days but the merged company proved to
be a winner and still dominates subscription TV in the UK and Ireland - it
helps that they have most of the sports broadcast contracts (enough to run
three dedicated sports channels - not counting the HD versions).
They have been part of Rupert Murdoch's empire from the start.
> Amazingly, they are still on the air. Same program too,
Nothing amazing about it Sky is the dominant broadcaster in the UK
and Ireland.
The heavy reception equipment is only needed outside the main
footprint of the Astra 2 group signal.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340096 is a reply to message #340079] |
Thu, 23 March 2017 22:10 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:49:27 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> LIFE magazine reported on the commercial debut of TV in 1939 (see
>> link below). Some of the information is technical, which may be
>> of interest here.
>>
>> Sets sold from $200 to $1000 (1939 dollars). A TV station would
>> have to spend $250,000, then times that of radio, for a transmitter.
>> Transmitters were limited to 50 miles, limiting the size of audience.
>> The behavior of the electrons was not fully understood.
>>
>>
>> A followup article in 1941 mentions the CBS color system (ultimate
>> rejected).
>>
>> for full detailed article please see:
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=CkkEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA45& amp;dq=life%201939%20television&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q= life%201939%20television&f=false
>>
>> Subsequent article:
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=fU0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20sep%2022%201941&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q=lif e%20sep%2022%201941&f=false
>>
>> (You may also scroll through the entire magazine).
>
> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November 1938"
> due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>
> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
I think I read about that a long time ago, and forgot about it.
Either tv was on a low enough channel that propagation was better, or it
was outstanding propagation (and it still had to be a relatively low
frequency).
There's a ham band at 50MHz (just below channel 2_, in the US and Canada,
it can be quite lively when propagation is good. But, in the UK and
Europe they didn't get the allocation (I'm not sure if that's changed in
recent years), so while transatlantic communication might have happened
when conditions were good, few in the UK and Europe would have been
listening, and none could reply.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340110 is a reply to message #340096] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 08:37 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1703232203140.30436@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:49:27 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>> LIFE magazine reported on the commercial debut of TV in 1939 (see
>>> link below). Some of the information is technical, which may be
>>> of interest here.
>>>
>>> Sets sold from $200 to $1000 (1939 dollars). A TV station would
>>> have to spend $250,000, then times that of radio, for a transmitter.
>>> Transmitters were limited to 50 miles, limiting the size of audience.
>>> The behavior of the electrons was not fully understood.
>>>
>>>
>>> A followup article in 1941 mentions the CBS color system (ultimate
>>> rejected).
>>>
>>> for full detailed article please see:
>>>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=CkkEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA45& amp;dq=life%201939%20television&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q= life%201939%20television&f=false
>>>
>>> Subsequent article:
>>>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=fU0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20sep%2022%201941&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q=lif e%20sep%2022%201941&f=false
>>>
>>> (You may also scroll through the entire magazine).
>>
>> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November 1938"
>> due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>
>> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>
> I think I read about that a long time ago, and forgot about it.
>
> Either tv was on a low enough channel that propagation was better, or it
> was outstanding propagation (and it still had to be a relatively low
> frequency).
Hopping across the North Sea at ~90Mhz was pretty common. In Bergen
on the west coast of Norway we could sometimes get reception of the
BBC on TV channels 2-4, and pointing a yagi antenna at the sea helped
a lot.
This was usually ca september, just after a storm. It could last for
several days.
> There's a ham band at 50MHz (just below channel 2_, in the US and Canada,
> it can be quite lively when propagation is good. But, in the UK and
> Europe they didn't get the allocation (I'm not sure if that's changed in
> recent years), so while transatlantic communication might have happened
> when conditions were good, few in the UK and Europe would have been
> listening, and none could reply.
The Brits never acknowledged if our transmissions reached them.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340113 is a reply to message #340108] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 08:49 |
osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>> 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>
>>> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>
> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>
>
I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
*them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
35 minutes now on some channels.
The big cable companies could fight this if they wanted but they are too
stupid to see their world collapsing around them. They are going to be
left with the dregs of society who can not afford a recorder and those
who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340116 is a reply to message #340113] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 09:11 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>>
>>>> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>>
>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>>
>>
> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
> commercial content.
It is reality TV programming that has killed all the useful channels
including science channel, discovery channel, and the history channel.
The science channel is either you-tube shit with idiot commentators
or everything is framed as a disaster. Programs that might otherwise
be interesting (Under the City, e.g.) are ruined by focusing on
extremely unlikely (or impossible) disasters and not focusing on the
science and engineering.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340119 is a reply to message #340113] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 11:43 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
> commercial content.
Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
Macleans I remember reading, at least.
I vehemently disagree.
A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
the early 8-bit computers. So that would have stunted the growth of the
microcomputer revolution, and limited the number of people who could
afford such computers even more.
And television is one of the few recreations that even the poor can
afford.
In any event, the Internet is now providing a rival distraction that is
killing television, leaving it to the cheap "reality shows"...
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340124 is a reply to message #340119] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 12:45 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
> their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
> the early 8-bit computers. So that would have stunted the growth of the
> microcomputer revolution, and limited the number of people who could
> afford such computers even more.
Not sure about the current state in the UK (I think it's the same
as here) but in Ireland the license is for the household and covers as many
televisions as you care to use. It also covers portables used away from
home (temporarily - it doesn't cover students at college).
> And television is one of the few recreations that even the poor can
> afford.
Here, at least, the license is free to anyone on social welfare
benefits, otherwise payments can be spread over the year.
The thing about it is that the money from the license goes to fund
the state broadcaster (BBC in the UK and RTE in Ireland), and AFAIK none of
the other broadcasters see any of it. The concept of a state broadcaster is
a tricky one - BBC and RTE are both set up with strong provisions against
becoming propaganda machines for the government but still they tend to be
seen as part of the "establishment". Both were set up with the memory of a
nasty and rather widespread war which left a very strong awareness of the
importance of the media not being under government control - I fear that
awareness is far weaker today and I would be quite worried to see state
broadcasters being created today in nominally free countries.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340125 is a reply to message #340113] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 13:32 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-24, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>>
>>>> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>>
>>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>
>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>
> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
> 35 minutes now on some channels.
The CBC comedy show "22 Minutes" was so named due to the fact that
a 30-minute time slot typically has 22 minutes of programming and
8 minutes of commercials. (ObTrivia: The name was shortened from
"This Hour Has 22 Minutes", a play on a CBC TV newsmagazine named
"This Hour Has Seven Days", which ran from 1964 to 1966. Ironically,
"Seven Days" only lasted two years, while "22 Minutes" recently
celebrated its 20th anniversary and is still going strong.)
> The big cable companies could fight this if they wanted but they are too
> stupid to see their world collapsing around them. They are going to be
> left with the dregs of society who can not afford a recorder and those
> who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
Yes, PVRs are wonderful. Ours has a button to jump ahead 30 seconds,
which makes it quite easy to skip commercials. We never watch TV in
real time anymore - although sometimes we'll start watching 15 minutes
after the show started, which means that by the end of an hour-long
show we're just catching up with real time.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340126 is a reply to message #340119] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 13:32 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-24, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> In any event, the Internet is now providing a rival distraction that is
> killing television, leaving it to the cheap "reality shows"...
Since Trump moved over to politics, TV now has really expensive
"reality shows".
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340128 is a reply to message #340113] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 13:36 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <ejkiv3Fln5jU1@mid.individual.net>,
r124c4u102@comcast.net says...
>
> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>>
>>>> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>>
>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>>
>>
> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
> 35 minutes now on some channels.
>
>
> The big cable companies could fight this if they wanted but they are too
> stupid to see their world collapsing around them. They are going to be
> left with the dregs of society who can not afford a recorder and those
> who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
If you want to pay for better quality
programming without commercials you are free to
do so. We have basic cable channels that have
advertising and premium channels that do not.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340132 is a reply to message #340113] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 14:33 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:49:36 -0500, Osmium wrote:
>
> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in
> the US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of
> the high commercial content.
I don't think the commercial content in other countries (UK, Germany,
France...) is lower with their fee based models.
I also say let the market alone. Who wants to watch TV, accept the
increasing aggressive commercial content. If you don't, pay somewhere to
get ad-free content.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you ever been kicked out of the zoo for heckling the monkeys.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340137 is a reply to message #340113] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 15:44 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 8:49:41 AM UTC-4, Osmium wrote:
> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
> 35 minutes now on some channels.
Yes, this is extremely frustrating. It used to be 23 minutes of
content per half hour. Now for many shows it's down to only 15 minutes.
Thus, an hour show will have a full half hour of commercials.
Personally, because of that I watch a lot less TV. I just can't
stand the obnoxious repetitive commercials. What's even more
angering is that now I have to pay dearly for cable TV to watch
the dreck. The cable carriers claim they have to pay it out,
though my carrier, Comcast, owns a network.
> The big cable companies could fight this if they wanted but they are too
> stupid to see their world collapsing around them. They are going to be
> left with the dregs of society who can not afford a recorder and those
> who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
Comcast, a major carrier, owns NBC and Universal and is extremely
(obscenely) profitable. Their physical quality sucks.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340138 is a reply to message #340119] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 15:55 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>
>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>> commercial content.
>
> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>
Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet, but
now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I found.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340140 is a reply to message #340113] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 10:15 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <ejkiv3Fln5jU1@mid.individual.net>,
Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>>
>>>> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>>
>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>>
>>
> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
> 35 minutes now on some channels.
>
>
> The big cable companies could fight this if they wanted but they are too
> stupid to see their world collapsing around them. They are going to be
> left with the dregs of society who can not afford a recorder and those
> who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
It is similar even in the state broadcasing channels, just lagging
a few decades behind. It is not so much the commercials (which formally
aren't there) but the attention span. They don't assume you can keep
a though for more than about three minutes.
But we have had some successes with slow tv.
THAT would be somthing for the US networks.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340142 is a reply to message #340128] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 16:16 |
osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/24/2017 12:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <ejkiv3Fln5jU1@mid.individual.net>,
> r124c4u102@comcast.net says...
>> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> > 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>> >
>>>> > < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>>>
>>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>>>
>>>
>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
>> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
>> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
>> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
>> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
>> 35 minutes now on some channels.
>>
>>
>> The big cable companies could fight this if they wanted but they are too
>> stupid to see their world collapsing around them. They are going to be
>> left with the dregs of society who can not afford a recorder and those
>> who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
> If you want to pay for better quality
> programming without commercials you are free to
> do so. We have basic cable channels that have
> advertising and premium channels that do not.
How in the world did you discover where I live and what is available to
me? In any event, your method failed, the only premium channels
available to me are almost entirely movies or ersartz movies, in which I
have zero interest.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340146 is a reply to message #340137] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 17:04 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 8:49:41 AM UTC-4, Osmium wrote:
>
>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
>> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
>> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
>> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
>> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
>> 35 minutes now on some channels.
>
> Yes, this is extremely frustrating. It used to be 23 minutes of
> content per half hour. Now for many shows it's down to only 15 minutes.
> Thus, an hour show will have a full half hour of commercials.
>
I hadn't noticed it being this bad - maybe I just don't watch those
particular shows. When I watch something I've DVRd I usually assume 40-45
minutes.
> Personally, because of that I watch a lot less TV. I just can't
> stand the obnoxious repetitive commercials. What's even more
> angering is that now I have to pay dearly for cable TV to watch
> the dreck. The cable carriers claim they have to pay it out,
> though my carrier, Comcast, owns a network.
>
>> The big cable companies could fight this if they wanted but they are too
>> stupid to see their world collapsing around them. They are going to be
>> left with the dregs of society who can not afford a recorder and those
>> who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
>
> Comcast, a major carrier, owns NBC and Universal and is extremely
> (obscenely) profitable. Their physical quality sucks.
Now Amazon and Netflix (and may e others) are producing their own shows for
streaming viewers. My experience with Amazon is that the quality is really
quite good, and they're doing stuff you wouldn't see on broadcast TV.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340149 is a reply to message #340119] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 18:22 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:43:44 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep their
> old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for the early
> 8-bit computers.
Why on earth not?
In the UK:
1) The licence fee is *per household*, not *per set*. So, unless ones
gives up watching television completely, it's not an issue.
2) Even if one *were* to give up watching TV, the licence fee is for
*receiving* broadcast television, not having a TV.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340152 is a reply to message #340138] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 18:45 |
Alfred Falk
Messages: 195
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1703241553370.32082@darkstar.example.org:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>
>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in
>>> the US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of
>>> the high commercial content.
>>
>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>
> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>
> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet,
> but now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I
> found.
Yes, Canada had such licencing. When I was a kid in the 50's I noticed the
warning on the back of old radios that you had to have a license to operate
them. My father explained it to me. In the early days of radio it was easy
for inspectors to spot your external antenna and knock on your door if you
weren't listed as having a license. The advent of internal loop antennas
for AM radios, made it a lot less convenient to enforce, so the laws
changed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340153 is a reply to message #340152] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 19:06 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Alfred Falk wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in
> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1703241553370.32082@darkstar.example.org:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in
>>>> the US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of
>>>> the high commercial content.
>>>
>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>
>> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>>
>> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
>> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
>> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet,
>> but now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I
>> found.
>
> Yes, Canada had such licencing. When I was a kid in the 50's I noticed the
> warning on the back of old radios that you had to have a license to operate
> them. My father explained it to me. In the early days of radio it was easy
> for inspectors to spot your external antenna and knock on your door if you
> weren't listed as having a license. The advent of internal loop antennas
> for AM radios, made it a lot less convenient to enforce, so the laws
> changed.
>
Thanks. So that gives an indication of when it went away. Yes, this was
a wooden cased radio with antenna terminals. Though, it just had a length
of wire hanging off that terminal. It had a shortwave band, and in 1970,
I was able to receive various shortwave broadcast stations.
In retrospect, it was a better radio than the shortwave radio I got the
next year, which wsa real junk.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340154 is a reply to message #340149] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 18:44 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2017 22:22:40 GMT
Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> 2) Even if one *were* to give up watching TV, the licence fee is for
> *receiving* broadcast television, not having a TV.
Although if you have both TV and aerial you'll be hard put to get
away with arguing that you never connect them together.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340157 is a reply to message #340110] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 19:32 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 24/03/2017 12:37, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1703232203140.30436@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:49:27 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> LIFE magazine reported on the commercial debut of TV in 1939 (see
>>>> link below). Some of the information is technical, which may be
>>>> of interest here.
>>>>
>>>> Sets sold from $200 to $1000 (1939 dollars). A TV station would
>>>> have to spend $250,000, then times that of radio, for a transmitter.
>>>> Transmitters were limited to 50 miles, limiting the size of audience.
>>>> The behavior of the electrons was not fully understood.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A followup article in 1941 mentions the CBS color system (ultimate
>>>> rejected).
>>>>
>>>> for full detailed article please see:
>>>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=CkkEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA45& amp;dq=life%201939%20television&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q= life%201939%20television&f=false
>>>>
>>>> Subsequent article:
>>>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=fU0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20sep%2022%201941&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q=lif e%20sep%2022%201941&f=false
>>>>
>>>> (You may also scroll through the entire magazine).
>>>
>>> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November 1938"
>>> due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>
>>> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>
>> I think I read about that a long time ago, and forgot about it.
>>
>> Either tv was on a low enough channel that propagation was better, or it
>> was outstanding propagation (and it still had to be a relatively low
>> frequency).
>
> Hopping across the North Sea at ~90Mhz was pretty common. In Bergen
> on the west coast of Norway we could sometimes get reception of the
> BBC on TV channels 2-4, and pointing a yagi antenna at the sea helped
> a lot.
>
> This was usually ca september, just after a storm. It could last for
> several days.
>
>> There's a ham band at 50MHz (just below channel 2_, in the US and Canada,
>> it can be quite lively when propagation is good. But, in the UK and
>> Europe they didn't get the allocation (I'm not sure if that's changed in
>> recent years), so while transatlantic communication might have happened
>> when conditions were good, few in the UK and Europe would have been
>> listening, and none could reply.
>
> The Brits never acknowledged if our transmissions reached them.
>
> -- mrr
>
>
>
The TV companies did sometimes report that they were receiving
interference from the continent. At the time I assumed that the source
was France.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340163 is a reply to message #340142] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 20:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <ejld4cFr05jU1@mid.individual.net>,
r124c4u102@comcast.net says...
>
> On 3/24/2017 12:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <ejkiv3Fln5jU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> r124c4u102@comcast.net says...
>>> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> >> 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>>> > Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>>> >
>>>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
>>> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
>>> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
>>> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
>>> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
>>> 35 minutes now on some channels.
>>>
>>>
>>> The big cable companies could fight this if they wanted but they are too
>>> stupid to see their world collapsing around them. They are going to be
>>> left with the dregs of society who can not afford a recorder and those
>>> who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
>> If you want to pay for better quality
>> programming without commercials you are free to
>> do so. We have basic cable channels that have
>> advertising and premium channels that do not.
>
> How in the world did you discover where I live and what is available to
> me? In any event, your method failed, the only premium channels
> available to me are almost entirely movies or ersartz movies, in which I
> have zero interest.
You were whingeing about conditions in "the
USA". If you are not in the USA then why do you
care?
If you are in the USA you have access to DirecTV
which carries HBO and Showtime, both of which
feature award-winning original content as well
as shows and movies from studios.
If you believe that they are limited to "movies
or ersatz movies" then you have assuredly not
seen "Game of Thrones" or "Homeland" to name to
examples.
You also have access to Amazon, Netflix, and
Hulu, all of which have commercial-free or
limited-commercial options, and a wide range of
original content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340184 is a reply to message #340113] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 06:18 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-24, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>>
>>>> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>>
>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>>
>>
> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
> 35 minutes now on some channels.
>
>
> The big cable companies could fight this if they wanted but they are too
> stupid to see their world collapsing around them. They are going to be
> left with the dregs of society who can not afford a recorder and those
> who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
>
Stat owned TV (paid for by licence tax) is sometimes good, the BBC used
produce fairly unbiased programming, but that failed after the Iraq invasion.
Our local state TV is presently undergoing a financial crises, but as
it has become a forum for politicians to yammer on for hours ( I remember
the story about Fidel Castro talking for hours, its a political failing),
nobody really cares. As I am beyond the grasp of the licence sellers,
and have lost our service,( Thanks Beardie, I hope the trips to the moon go
well), personally, "My dear, I don't give a damn" (or whatever R.Butler said)
For real crap, go to Italy, its like that scene in the film
"A clockwork orange", when the prisoner is forced to watch
horrible films, Spain is not great either.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340185 is a reply to message #340119] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 06:22 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-24, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>
>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>> commercial content.
>
> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>
> I vehemently disagree.
>
> A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
> their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
> the early 8-bit computers. So that would have stunted the growth of the
> microcomputer revolution, and limited the number of people who could
> afford such computers even more.
>
> And television is one of the few recreations that even the poor can
> afford.
>
> In any event, the Internet is now providing a rival distraction that is
> killing television, leaving it to the cheap "reality shows"...
>
> John Savard
My present favourite program, "Cant pay, we will take it away" (about
debt collectors), shows that the most primitive home have big TVs.
Big TV, Netflix, sixpacks, what more does a man want.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340186 is a reply to message #340124] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 06:29 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
>> their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
>> the early 8-bit computers. So that would have stunted the growth of the
>> microcomputer revolution, and limited the number of people who could
>> afford such computers even more.
>
> Not sure about the current state in the UK (I think it's the same
> as here) but in Ireland the license is for the household and covers as many
> televisions as you care to use. It also covers portables used away from
> home (temporarily - it doesn't cover students at college).
>
>> And television is one of the few recreations that even the poor can
>> afford.
>
> Here, at least, the license is free to anyone on social welfare
> benefits, otherwise payments can be spread over the year.
>
> The thing about it is that the money from the license goes to fund
> the state broadcaster (BBC in the UK and RTE in Ireland), and AFAIK none of
> the other broadcasters see any of it.
RTE has been buying in programs for years, I once tried to organize
TV coverage of a protest about something, well down the country, RTE
basically refused to send a crew further than 30 miles from Montrose.
There _are_ proposals to divide out the licence fee between the
broadcasting companies, why, I cannot imagine.
> The concept of a state broadcaster is
> a tricky one - BBC and RTE are both set up with strong provisions against
> becoming propaganda machines for the government but still they tend to be
> seen as part of the "establishment". Both were set up with the memory of a
> nasty and rather widespread war which left a very strong awareness of the
> importance of the media not being under government control - I fear that
> awareness is far weaker today and I would be quite worried to see state
> broadcasters being created today in nominally free countries.
>
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340193 is a reply to message #340138] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 06:40 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-24, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>
>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>> commercial content.
>>
>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>
> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>
> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet, but
> now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I found.
>
> Michael
I read years ago that Soviet radios were hardwired to only receive
State radio, however around 1993, I bought one at a country market, and
its coverage of FM went well below 89. Police calls could be heard.
It was probably changed over the years.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340194 is a reply to message #340125] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 06:45 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-24, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-03-24, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>
>> who don't want to bother with pre-recording programs for later viewing.
>
> Yes, PVRs are wonderful. Ours has a button to jump ahead 30 seconds,
> which makes it quite easy to skip commercials. We never watch TV in
> real time anymore - although sometimes we'll start watching 15 minutes
> after the show started, which means that by the end of an hour-long
> show we're just catching up with real time.
>
I think that recording TV is what happens when you cannot
be bothered to actually look at it.
My late wife, who was religious, would record things like the Popes
message at Christmas, while she (and I) were cooking the dinner. She
never really looked at them.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340196 is a reply to message #340193] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 07:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <slrnodci76.1p2.mausg@smaus.org>,
mausg@mail.com says...
>
> On 2017-03-24, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> commercial content.
>>>
>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>
>> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>>
>> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
>> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
>> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet, but
>> now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I found.
>>
>> Michael
>
> I read years ago that Soviet radios were hardwired to only receive
> State radio, however around 1993, I bought one at a country market, and
> its coverage of FM went well below 89. Police calls could be heard.
> It was probably changed over the years.
Or just a combination of subversion by the
workers and incompetence by the inspectors.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340197 is a reply to message #340185] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 07:49 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 4:22:47 AM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> Big TV, Netflix, sixpacks, what more does a man want.
Just _one_ more thing, though it isn't really a thing; rather, she
is a person. A mate.
That is why it is not as simple as one might like to produce
universal contentment. Given an economy that prevents many men
from being good enough providers for a family with children, given
the rise to women to equality, which means they can opt to take
jobs themselves and not be dependent on any man they can find...
in today's climate, the pornography industry, however much it is
sneered at, serves a useful purpose.
It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
