HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Subject: Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave
Reply-To: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:43:54 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.235412.7428@dscomsf.desy.de>,
hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|> [lots about missing ceilings, etc. - all good stuff]
|> 
|> Of course it would be quite fair to say, why not make the treasury
pay for the
|> long wave service then. However there was always a good argument for
that. The
|> longwave transmitter is expressly for emergency broadcasting. It can
reach the
|> whole UK. The government need to keep people buying long wave radios
so that if
|> disater strikes people will be able to hear what the government is doing.

Given their performance in the present economic disaster, I imagine I
wouldn't want to bother with knowing what they were up to if some
_real_ disaster (TM) struck...
--
Robin (come back John Drummond) Fairbairns       rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
From: bemj1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Bernie Jones)
Subject: Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave
Reply-To: bemj1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Bernie Jones)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:37:31 GMT

In article <JIM.92Oct9142043@runningbear.edscom.demon.co.uk> Jim Thomas <jthomas@edscom.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>> In article <1992Oct9.104140.13147@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, "||" ==
>>>>>> rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
.......
>||> Say after me: COMPETITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENHANCE CHOICE
>||> Robin (come back John Drummond)
>
>It does enhance the choice for the majority of people who do not
>want to listen to toffy nosed people in their ivory towers speculating
>endlessly on news that no normal person cares about. The best thing to
>do would be to sell off Radio 4 as a shopping by radio channel.
>
>Classic FM has shown us what a commercial organisation can do where
>the BBC has failed.

Yes - consistantly mispronounce composers' names and play music of fairly
mediocre quality, to name just two.

More seriously though - when broadcasting stations are commercialised
the quality of broadcasts invariably goes down. It does not make good
business sense to spend loads of money to produce something out of the
ordinary if you get as much (or more) advertising revenue and market
share by churning out rubbish. In it's efforts to become more _popular_ 
and to constrain spending the BBC has gone downhill - Radio 3 has more 
talking than music and the television channels seem to run an inordinate
number of repeats.
The thing is that commercialisation will make the quality even _worse_. 
Just look at a typical day's programming on SKY. If you make every
station competitive all that results is a race as to who can show more
repeats/cheap programmes faster and more often!

KEEP THE BBC AS IT IS 
(actually, I'd like to see the return of the Light Programme, but you 
can't have everything)

Bernie Jones
Xref: sparky uk.misc:180 soc.culture.british:14121
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Radio 3 (was Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave)
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:46:26 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <Bw1uq8.3Hv@fulcrum.bt.co.uk>, igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
> In article <TFB.92Oct12175119@badger.aisb.ed.ac.uk> tfb@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes:
>> > from playing music that very few people want to listen to.  If you
>> > believe that the rest of the population should subsidise a small
>> > number of people's esoteric tastes, that is.
>> 
>> To a certain extent yes I do, for reasons I can't easily explain.  But
> 
> I don't when the segment of the population that is subsidised can well
> afford it.  For us, the RSC is our nearest theatre time-wise so we see
> almost every production.  The tickets there are subsidised, heavily, so
> that there are almost no tickets that cost more than 20 quid.
> 
> But the social spectrum represented is clearly affluent.
> 
Maybe if the tickets were *even* cheaper that would encourage more people who
wouldn't otherwise go and see a play/concert/opera to do so. Try putting
yourself in the position of someone who has 25 quid a week to spend after rent
and food. If the choice is between a rock concert at 25 quid all in, which you
*know* you're going to enjoy, and a Shakespeare play at 10 quid a ticket plus 10
quid return travel on the bus plus 15 quid to stay overnight in STratford
because there isn't a bus back after the play and on top of that you don't know
whether you're going to enjoy yourself, which would *you* choose?

You are lucky. You have a car to travel in. You can afford 20 quid seats. You
have enough education to know that you will probably enjoy a Shakespeare play.
If you pick a bad production, well, there's always a next time. For many people
there never will be a next time.

> For R3, if people like it that much they can pay for it.  The problem of
> taxpayers' money being used to subsidise the arts is that the argument
> runs:
> 
> 	I don't want to spend my own money on this.
> 	I want to spend someone else's.
> 
I would put it rather:

I cannot afford to spend my money on this.
It is essential that this is widely available for the cultural life of the
nation.
Therefore it must be subsidised.

> ian
> 
> [[ whose radios only receive R3 and R4 and attends subsidised theatre
> and music on a regular basis, so is hardly some philistine knocking down
> other people's interests. ]]

 Whenever you go to the RSC do you donate an additional 10 pounds to the 
company? Do you send the BBC a fiver every time you listen to a concert on
Radio 3? If you do, fine. If not, why not?
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
Xref: sparky uk.misc:195 soc.culture.british:14261
From: guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:07:17 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk (Richard Tomlinson) writes:

>The BBC will probably get a lot of post complaining about the loss of R4FM to
>a news service. 

Unlikely, since the plan is to convert R4 long wave to a news service.

-- 
Guy Barry | Computer Laboratory     | Centre for Cognitive Science
          | University of Cambridge | University of Edinburgh
          | Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk  | guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
          | +44 (0)223 334757       | +44 (0)31 650 4422
Xref: sparky uk.misc:145 rec.video.cable-tv:1749
From: gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: The connector conspiracy (Was Re: nicam in Scotland)
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:31:51 GMT
Organization: Ironpig Arcadia, Coventry, UK

In article <Bvp8I5.3tD@fulcrum.bt.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
>I now have cable installed, so for those that needs facts (we got 'em)
[much deleted]
>I finally hung the TV off the cable head and the Arcam and the Video off
>the aerial.  

You won't get much of a good picture doing that. Do you have an external 
aerial cable? If so, then hanging the video and the arcam off it will no
doubt result in getting a very soggy piece of hardware if it rains. And
hanging the TV off the cable head will only weaken the sockets. The best
thing to do in your situation is to bring the video and the arcam back inside
before the weather gets worse and put the TV on the table in the corner
where it belongs. 8*)

-- 
        	 **Ridley McIntyre - Ronin Ironpig**			
*Back With	     gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk             A Vengeance*
		 -----------------------------------
     	     "He's in a wibbly-wobbly world of his own."
Xref: sparky uk.misc:158 soc.culture.british:13915
From: d_smith@chef.uwe.ac.uk (Dylan Smith)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave
Date: 10 Oct 92 11:09:27 GMT
Organization: The University of the West of England (The Magic Roundabout)

In article <JIM.92Oct8164234@runningbear.edscom.demon.co.uk>, jim@edscom.demon.co.uk (Jim Thomas) writes:
|> Head> of Radio 4 IMHO is to carry quality news - this will still be
|> Head> available to all those who can get LW. I would also point out that
|> Head> people outside the UK should not enter the argument as they don't
|> Head> pay a licence fee. Remember that the World Service is paid for by
|> Head> the foreign office.

How about those of us without FM car radios? FM is c@@p in cars unless you
have RDS, which costs a fortune. Please don't say 'all new cars have FM
radios etc.' - some of us can't afford anything newer than A reg.
At least with LW or MW you don't have to keep retuning your radio.

-- 
Email : JANET  dylan@uwe.hal | Everywhere else : dylan@hal.uwe.ac.uk
             d_smith@uwe.csd |                 d_smith@csd.uwe.ac.uk
Xref: sparky uk.misc:187 soc.culture.british:14208
From: tfb@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Radio 3 (was Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave)
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:06:08 GMT
	<TFB.92Oct12175119@badger.aisb.ed.ac.uk> <Bw1uq8.3Hv@fulcrum.bt.co.uk>
Organization: Not

>>>>> On 13 Oct 92 07:42:07 GMT, igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) said:

> [I said I thought arts subsidy was OK].

> I don't when the segment of the population that is subsidised can well
> afford it.  For us, the RSC is our nearest theatre time-wise so we see
> almost every production.  The tickets there are subsidised, heavily, so
> that there are almost no tickets that cost more than 20 quid.

> But the social spectrum represented is clearly affluent.

I know, and this is a real problem.  I would like to believe that the
solution to this is to somehow persuade people that much of the stuff
that is subsidised is *not* for the moneyed/highly-educated few and to
get them to go/listen/whatever, because it's *fun*.  But I don't
expect this will ever happen -- especially as I think the elites like
to stay that way.


> The only reason to subsidise that I can see is if it encourages an
> audience who would not otherwise be able to afford to attend AND you
> regard the work on offer as ``worthy'' in some loose way.

No please not that.  Great art is great because it's wonderful, *not*
because it's worthy.  There is far too much worthiness about.

--tim
Xref: sparky uk.misc:164 soc.culture.british:13982
From: tfb@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Radio 3 (was Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave)
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:51:19 GMT
	<TFB.92Oct11213426@badger.aisb.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Oct12.145703.17665@rdg.dec.com>
Organization: Not

>>>>> On 12 Oct 92 14:55:12 GMT, potter@movies.enet.dec.com (Alan T Potter) said:

> tfb@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes...
>>>>>>>(Jim Thomas) said:
>> 
>>> Classic FM has shown us what a commercial organisation can do where
>>> the BBC has failed.
>> 
>>You mean play lots of very unchallenging classical music

> Unchallenging?  Oh, you mean music that a large number of people
> want to listen to.

If they never hear it how will they ever know if they want to hear it?


> That's Radio 3's decision, surely - the fact that Classic FM
> produces music that people want to listen to need not stop Radio 3
> from playing music that very few people want to listen to.  If you
> believe that the rest of the population should subsidise a small
> number of people's esoteric tastes, that is.

To a certain extent yes I do, for reasons I can't easily explain.  But
more important is the point above -- you need channels to introduce
this stuff (not just R3 and not just music) to a wide audience.  It's
almost bound to be the case that much of what gets
played/shown/whatever will be esoteric, obscure, and probably not very
good.  But there will be amazing stuff which you will never come
across otherwise.  

If there was a way that organisations which do this sort of thing
could be self-supporting then I would be completely in favour of that.
If they can't then I am willing to subsidise both the stuff I am
interested in and the stuff I'm not.  I know of no evidence that they
can be successfully self-supporting.

--tim
Xref: sparky uk.misc:176 soc.culture.british:14059
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 17:07:33 BST
Distribution: uk
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

potter@movies.enet.dec.com (Alan T Potter) writes:
> That's Radio 3's decision, surely - the fact that Classic FM produces music
> that people want to listen to need not stop Radio 3 from playing music that
> very few people want to listen to.  If you believe that the rest of the
> population should subsidise a small number of people's esoteric tastes, that
> is.

Anyway, why shouldn't Radio 3 fans suffer the way rock music fans have
suffered over the last few years?  Radio 1 has been bland pap for ages, why
not Radio 3 as well?

Classical music enthusiasts are going to have to do what rock music
enthusiasts do -- stop listening to the radio and read the music press.


mathew
-- 
"... A socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to
 leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
 capitalism and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson on Feminism

Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
From: jim@edscom.demon.co.uk (Jim Thomas)
Subject: Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave
X-Disclaimer: #include <std/witty/disclaimer.h>
Reply-To: Jim Thomas <jthomas@edscom.demon.co.uk>
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:42:38 GMT

>>>>> In article <1992Oct8.134220.17155@edscom.demon.co.uk>, "Head" ==
>>>>> rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk (Richard Tomlinson) writes:

Head> In article <PD.92Oct7184404@herts.x.co.uk> pd@x.co.uk (Paul Davey) writes:
>
>The BBC has announced that the domestic Radio 4 service will no longer
>be broadcast on 198Khz longwave (1500m). That frequency will then be
>used for the proposed BBC 24 hour News service.
>
>BBC R4 will still be available on VHF/FM.
>
>As the longwave frequency can be picked up all over the British Isles
>and much of Western Europe many listeners are up in arms over this
>proposed change.
>
>Most drama programmes will not be carried on the news service.
>

Head> This all sounds like a great idea to me. Drama is not very
Head> interesting on LW as it's not stereo. The most important function
Head> of Radio 4 IMHO is to carry quality news - this will still be
Head> available to all those who can get LW. I would also point out that
Head> people outside the UK should not enter the argument as they don't
Head> pay a licence fee. Remember that the World Service is paid for by
Head> the foreign office.

There is no license fee for radio in this country either. You could
point out that most UK residents pay a TV licence fee and some of this
(in the case of Radio 3 a lot of it) goes to radio. However, people
outside the UK can receive BBC TV on cable. Some of these pay for the
privilege. Some of this money goes to radio no doubt and therefore they
are in exactly the same position as the rest of us.

The best solution would be to privatise Radio 4 and let the market
(and the advertisers) decide what is really popular.


Jim Thomas
Xref: sparky uk.misc:167 soc.culture.british:13995
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Bloody Tories! Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:05:58 GMT
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA

In article <JIM.92Oct8164234@runningbear.edscom.demon.co.uk>,
jim@edscom.demon.co.uk (Jim Thomas) writes:

|>The best solution would be to privatise Radio 4 and let the market
|>(and the advertisers) decide what is really popular.

It's because of the dimwit ecconomic dogma of the privitisation loonies that the
UK no longer has an ecconomy in which I can get a job and so I have to go and
work in Europe. Now they have made the same conclusion that the looney left in
the Labour party once made, privatisation failed because it wasn't tried hard
enough!

By the way have you noticed the suddent reversal of the UK press? Before the
problems of the UK were all because Thatcher had screwed things up and the
solution was a new man. Now the conclusion is that Major just is not up to the
job and that Thatcher was right all along. When will they admit the truth that
the whole damn Tory party are a bunch of useless bozos with no more idea of how
to run the country than Dan Quayle.


--
Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky uk.misc:190 soc.culture.british:14222
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Radio 3 (was Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave)
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:00:39 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <1992Oct14.094626.9493@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>  Whenever you go to the RSC do you donate an additional 10 pounds to the 
> company? Do you send the BBC a fiver every time you listen to a concert on
> Radio 3? If you do, fine. If not, why not?

No, but I would if asked.  PBS radio in the US seems perfectly fine.  In
a sense I do donate money to Stratford, because we book and pay right at
the beginning of the booking period so they have my money for up to six
months.  Helps their cashflow, I suppose.

ian
Xref: sparky uk.misc:196 soc.culture.british:14268
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Radio 3 (was Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:15:36 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <Bw7ID3.9x4@fulcrum.co.uk>, igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.094626.9493@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>  Whenever you go to the RSC do you donate an additional 10 pounds to the 
>> company? Do you send the BBC a fiver every time you listen to a concert on
>> Radio 3? If you do, fine. If not, why not?
> 
> No, but I would if asked.  PBS radio in the US seems perfectly fine.  In
> a sense I do donate money to Stratford, because we book and pay right at
> the beginning of the booking period so they have my money for up to six
> months.  Helps their cashflow, I suppose.
> 

The trouble is that if they asked for extra cash from their patrons the
philistine government would turn round and say `You no longer need our
subsidy.' Seat prices would rise, the audience would become even more
middle-class and eventually the company would be forced either to compromise on
artistic standards or to cut the number of performances. They cannot afford to
ask you for more money: you must make that move yourself *if* you believe that
is the best route to go down in artistic as well as commercial grounds.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
From: potter@movies.enet.dec.com (Alan T Potter)
Subject: Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave
Organisation: VMS Engineering, DEC, Scotland
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:55:12 GMT


tfb@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes...
>>>>>> On 9 Oct 92 13:20:48 GMT, jim@edscom.demon.co.uk (Jim Thomas) said:
> 
>> Classic FM has shown us what a commercial organisation can do where
>> the BBC has failed.
> 
>You mean play lots of very unchallenging classical music

Unchallenging?  Oh, you mean music that a large number of people want to listen
to.

>and at the
>cause more of the same to be played on R3 because they feel compelled
>to `compete'?

That's Radio 3's decision, surely - the fact that Classic FM produces music
that people want to listen to need not stop Radio 3 from playing music that
very few people want to listen to.  If you believe that the rest of the
population should subsidise a small number of people's esoteric tastes, that
is.

regards,
/Alan

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Alan.Potter@edo.mts.dec.com   | My opinions are mine, not DEC's 0506 423307 |
| NTS: GM7GLJ@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU |  VMS Engineering, Livingston, UK  EH54 6AG  |
+------------- The bridge is crossed, so stand and watch it burn -------------+
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
From: streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)
Subject: Re: BBC Radio 4 Longwave
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:08:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.153731.20556@infodev.cam.ac.uk> bemj1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Bernie Jones) writes:
>
>More seriously though - when broadcasting stations are commercialised
>the quality of broadcasts invariably goes down. It does not make good
>business sense to spend loads of money to produce something out of the
>ordinary if you get as much (or more) advertising revenue and market
>share by churning out rubbish. In it's efforts to become more _popular_ 
>and to constrain spending the BBC has gone downhill - Radio 3 has more 
>talking than music and the television channels seem to run an inordinate
>number of repeats.
>The thing is that commercialisation will make the quality even _worse_. 
>Just look at a typical day's programming on SKY. If you make every
>station competitive all that results is a race as to who can show more
>repeats/cheap programmes faster and more often!
>
I have mixed feelings about this whole business. In the old days there was only
the Beeb, and the argument was that commercial TV would lower the tone. In
the event, it was very good for Auntie 'cos she had to compete and become more
efficient. The competition was the one commercial channel in any particular
area, and this worked very well because there was not competition between
*two* commercial stations. When Ronbo deregulated TV here in the early 80's,
the idea was to leave it to "the market". But the "market" in this case is not
the public but the advertisers, so we get what the advertisers want, not what 
the public wants. So you get lots of boring ads, repeated ad nauseam. I have
more or less given up watching commercial TV here, for this reason. 

If a commercial station has no commercial competition, they can afford to
charge more for fewer ads, and the ad companies can afford to spend more on the
individual ads (and the company whose product is being pushed is no worse off,
financially). Thus you get more interesting ads, which I as a consumer am more
likely to watch because they are interesting in their own right. Funnily
enough, this has been just my experience on visiting UK & watching commercials;
they are more interesting, funnier, more likely to catch my attention. And
because I don't see the same one 27 times in one evening, I don't get pissed
off at the product, which happens here to me whenever I watch Star Trek.

On the other hand, here I have a choice of two commercial stations playing
classical music 24 hours a day. One is particularly good and broadcasts live
performances of the Metropolitan Opera of New York and the Lyric Opera of
Chicago, for example. Neither has that many ads so I am not sure how they turn 
a profit. 

tin.
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british