h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This must be come to an end. It may have started without us being aware. Why did the BBC move into digital broadcasting when there was no need to? Could one explanation be that by eventually moving to digital non paying T.V. viewers could be ‘locked out.’ Only those paying their subscription will be able to view. How many households don’t have a licence? The BBC assume that all households have a TV set. How many houses dare they not visit without police protection?
However, great care must be taken before moving format. Did the BBC move into digital too early? Probably. They now have old equipment and a protection system that could be cracked.

Why is the equipment old? The BBC said it wanted to move to digital to gain experience. One can always read and be aware of what is developing around one and make note of its shortcomings. Sky uses MPEG 2 compression and are now stuck with it unless they replace all the receivers again! We now have MPEG4 and other techniques available. The BBC could have moved in at a later date to advantage. “On Digital” has collapsed. Their card protection system had been hacked which meant that an owner of a counterfeit card could watch all their programs and Sky’s for nothing. (Including pay films) This then is another area the BBC would have been advised to wait to use very high level, constantly changing codes on a new encryption system.

The BBC and Quality.

The BBC has always been known for technical superiority. The training given to BBC staff was extremely valuable for them. This is slipping. New screen formats have caused confusion which should have been avoided. Most shops are demonstrating widescreen televisions with a 4:3 picture stretched to fill it. This just makes people look fat. The BBC logo, which itself should not be there, sits well in if you have a widescreen set. cameramen have to be careful to get head and shoulders in the 4:3 position. They probably have markers on their monitors. Digital broadcasting does not mean higher quality as put out on BBC news. There is nothing finer than a full analogue signal coming from ‘Winter Hill’ transmitter to my home. What they mean is more people will get a better picture than they have been getting. If you live in Wales with some giant hill blocking the signal to your house then of course, the picture will be better than snow. Digital TV is compressed. ‘On Digital’ was a good example of how bad it could be. My picture was always breaking up, particularly Channel 5. Picture turns to blocks and sound stops.

The BBC and Ratings.

I have never understood why the BBC has to worry about ratings. The Director General should propose, a strategy and stick to it. What does the country need? Looking at kids today and the lack of discipline a series of programs on how to bring up children for today would be extremely useful. Programs for younger children could be broadcast early and for older children later and later in the evenings. If cost is a factor then the broadcast hours could be cut or used for repeats. The repeats would be the day’s programs broadcast again so that shift workers and the like would have the opportunity to see them. Just think how useful this would be if you had tuned into a fantastic program but only able to see the last 10 minutes. You would know that it would be repeated later that day.

Does the BBC need to be in Radio any more?

Local commercial radio has grown tremendously over the years and is duplicated, at tremendous expense by the BBC. Some programs are exactly like the commercial equivalent. World radio, if required, should be paid for by other countries or the government. We don’t use it.

BBC restart!

In a way it is a pity one couldn’t close down the BBC as it is and start again from scratch. It has spread too far. It is trying to do too much. Why can’t the BBC negotiate sensibly with other terrestrial broadcasters. Why do we need the same football, or tennis match on ITV and the BBC. So long as someone is covering it, great. Save money. Do something different with the money.

BBC and advertising.

This year the National Lottery relaunched and spent(I think it was) £15,000,000 on it. How much has the BBC spent on advertising? THIS IS RIDICULOUS!
What is it for? All over the country billboards proclaim that the BBC is having a party. Great, so what? They advertise constantly before and after every program now, weeks ahead so why BUY advertising? It must be costing millions to advertise this and other programs the way they do. THEY ARE USING OUR MONEY!
Stories of lavish parties for staff to “bond” at hundreds of thousands of pounds each do not please license payers.

What not to spend the license fee on.

Sport. If the commercial companies need this to sell their advertising let them have it. Why must the BBC have it? Ratings. Forget ratings. For a broadcaster that has its money ‘in the bag’ much greater things could be done with it.
No more violent films or commissioned violence. What the BBC produces we all see later on when it is sold. Promote excellence. Let’s have some family orientated films. Let’s promote GOODNESS on the BBC not violence and sex.
The BBC always used to be first with innovations. Sky is to be the first broadcaster to sent out sound in a 5.1 format for surround sound listening. What has happened to High Definition T.V. Over 15 years ago I went to demonstrations in Preston Guild Hall and saw the wonderful quality that is possible on TV. I remember moving from 405 lines of transmission to 625 lines that we still have today. When is the next change for all to benefit? the BBC is playing with interactive TV in what looks to me an amateurish way. let’s move forward.

These are my first thoughts on the BBC Licence. I must stop now. I may come back to it.

George

Hi George
Do you think that TV licence money was well spent in the acquisition of h2g2 ?