Slashdot Mirror
BBC to Try TV On Demand
Shevek writes "The UK Independent newspaper is reporting on a new BBC trial: 'Later this month, the BBC will launch a pilot project that could lead to all television programmes being made available on the internet. Viewers will be able to scan an online guide and download any show. Programmes would be viewed on a computer screen or could be burned to a DVD and watched on a television set. Alternatively, programmes could be downloaded to a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) ... By launching iMP, the BBC hopes to avoid being left at the mercy of a software giant such as Microsoft, which could try to control the gateway to online television.' Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM)."
Who do I have to blow to work for a company that hands out PDAs with 512 meg CF to all its employees, just so they can watch TV at work!?
The BBC License Fee is great if it means that us Americans can get all that great programming without having to pay for it! :-)
TV on demand is the future, once you get a taste of it, it's hard to go back.. Luckily for the content providers, TIVO and ReplayTV have already demonstrated the market. Sure TIVO isn't really TV on demand, but it helped define the market.
--
Hot deals!
the bbc already has a thing for the latest news, at reasonable quality. news.bbc.org.uk
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
I am not an active TV watcher - I have it on most of the time, but only passively. If I have to "make" it work by "demanding" it, I'm likely to find another source that's easier - a "flip-the-switch-and-go" kind of thing.
I lived in the UK for 4 years and just returned to Canada. I only wish the CBC was as good as the BBC. I do find their style of news to be way to similar to the big, sensational US news outlets but, otherwise, the content is great! Heck, I'd probably even pay my license fee from Canada!
Just to remind everyone, the BBC license fee is a tax on every television set in the UK.
(I don't live in the UK, but I would pay it if I could get this kind of innovation)
They'll go and use RealMedia or WMV and still be at the mercy of some other company.
I doubt they'll use XVID or other open standards. Would be fairly neutral if they released MPEG-2 files, however these would be gigantic.
The BBC will likely do something to limit the International use of this service, as having the shows freely availalbe over the Web might negatively impact their ability to sell their programs in other places, and some of the shows aired by the BBC belong to other companies and they want the exclusive rights to the show in their home territory.
The article refers to this being a challenge, but one they plan on getting over...
It is great to see a company that is willing to provide choice to its customers.
Perhaps this will force American media companies to offer a few better options to their customers.
-
It's a considerable boon to the future of de-centralized media to see a company like the BBC giving this a shot. If Internet users can acclimate towards using an Internet-based tv show broadcasting service, that could put media in the hands of those that deserve it, rather than those that have money and/or are already established as major players in the media industry. i.e. web sites like Slashdot could begin to leverage their user-base into targetted commercial ads, allowing the formation of "television" style shows online. Plus, the last thing we need is a software company like MS in control of the media because it's software is the platform to connect to all the sundries of devices.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
This is an interesting move, especially considering the events transpiring regarding digital televion, TV ripping and the like. I find it refreshing and interesting that while the recording industries (namely the MPAA) push broadcast flag legislation through, in an attempt to end behavior like this, the BBC makes it computer viewable. Also, sites that are providing ED2K links and torrents to TV Rips are beginning to feel the wrath of the DMCA, so I wonder how much this will change things? Probably not much... but hey, I try to be optimistic.
Hate to reply to my own post, but that is ten Pounds per month (the pound character got cut off).
But all TV programs are already available on the net,
#tv-torrents
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
That way I can watch just the BBC shows I like and only pay for what I want to watch.
;)
No more paying for Video Tape or DVD copies of BBC shows and waiting for them to ship. Just pay and download, and then burn my own copy to a Video CD or DVD disk. I guess they have controls so that only one copy can be burned?
Video Rental stores ought to get into this gig, get the license to distribute the movies digitally and sell them on their website.
Might as well, would be a much better quality than those idiots who bring video cameras to movie theatres and then upload those videos to file sharing networks.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
This will raise some intersting questions: Apart from resulting in nonTV owners (and hence non licience payers) accessing the BBC it would this not lead to much wider dissemination of the BBC TV outside the UK. Wouldn't this damage the existing syndication relationships that the BBC has set up. I am amased that any broadcaster risk distribution over the internet. Certainty thinking outside the box.
It's about time. The only way I watch TV any more is through downloads or season DVD's who has the time to play the network games when they bounce your favorite shows around every other week chasing ratings numbers.
We recently dropped our cable subscription down to the $10 /mth 19 channel deal, and we're thinking about dropping that. The problem is that we only ever watched one or two channels and we didn't get enough viewing time to make it worth our $99 /mth cable bill.
I would love to be able to just watch the shows that I want, when I want them, and pay strictly for what I watch. I don't want to pay for a bunch of crap I don't want. Why should I be forced to buy HGTV when I'm an overweight fat slob who spends 99% of his day behind a keyboard? All I wanted was Tech Tv (although it's gone downhill bigtime).
You might be interested in /.'s BBC coverage from last week then, in which the BBC has created an open source, wavelet-based codec which ramps from low to high throughput with better than MPEG2 video quality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/ No fee for the radio sets.
Even though I am American, I would happily pay the 121 pound annual license fee. IMHO, the BBC programming is much more intellectually stimulating, and costs far less, than cable/satellite TV in this country. Most of the shows I do actually watch are BBC productions that are airing on PBS.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
You don't need no restrictive technology to make money out of media content, just find an easy-to-use distribution vector and a fair price. Who will want to sweep through a couple of hundreds of low-res DiVx files on Kazaa to download a show when you can get it premium quality for a price this low?
I wonder what is the ROI (Return on Investment) of the boradcast flag when compared to this...The licence fee is per household, rather than per TV. Also, the BBC is completely free of advertising: how many TV stations can tout that around the world??? :)
No, you do not pay on how many TV tuners. You pay per household.
No, you don't have to pay for radio anymore. Radio makes up less than 1% of the BBCs total spending, so I guess they figured the cost of billing people for radios was over the amount they'd actually get.
Also, portable TVs are exempt from the license.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
I'm a big fan of BBC programming and reguarly download it from the Usenet currently (recent favorites: The Office and The Worst Week of My Life). Because this is based on UK licensing fees, I wonder if it will be available to those of us in the rest of the world? Or perhaps we can pay a small fee to be able to download these episodes as well? This is the way I hope TV is going. My schedule is such that I am in bed before most of the prime time TV is on so the only way to watch it is to download it (or get one of those TiVOs).
TV and teeth on demand! How the hell did they lose the empire?
why not provide shows on bit torrent?
is it because it's harder to advertise?
would people be offended by short adverts played at the beginning of the video files? (eg This Bit Torrent file is brought to you by...)
networks could distribute the seeds across their affiliates to reduce bandwidth cost, etc.
This is The Independent, one of the major newspapers in the UK. That's like mirroring the New York Times.
My mistake - BBC's site wasn't too clear on the topic. Still, it's completely ridiculous - what if I don't WANT to watch BBC? Why should I still pay for it? As for commercial-free stations - I get 2 or 3 of those with my service, though I completely satisfied with around 50 other channels that run ads, for a price that is still less than what BBC asks.
If it doesn't, I'm going to set up a home-made video box over there just to record stuff, so that I can download it to my PC. "Footballers' Wives", here I come.
...tizzyd
Quick! Someone get all the Top Gear episodes and send them to me.
http://www.maximum-cars.com - My little hobbie.
Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM).
Just a pity they can't leave people the fuck alone if they don't want it.
Comcast's basic cable here in Philly suburbs is $10 a month. With taxes it's $11.
that is pretty good, though I have very little I like on the BBC besides their news, that is a nice thing.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
A couple of days ago, I clicked to view a video on BBC news website and it told me that I have to buy a subscription as international user. I was a bit surprised since so far, BBC had been free and even free from ads.
This page says that: "Broadband video news from the BBC is only available to international users by subscription. Find out how to get the latest broadband video news from the BBC here.
It doesn't explicitly say, but the tone of the article suggests that the BBC's mentality is not much different from the **AA bunch.
"If we don't enter this market, then exactly what happened to the music industry could happen to us... everybody starts posting the content up there and ripping us off."
What would be wrong with the public freely sharing the content? They are subsidizing the creation of it with their tax payments.
Why don't allegedly "public" broadcasters, like the BBC in Brittan or PBS or NPR in the US, produce and release content under Creative Commons type, or other Free licences? That way the public could use, share, and redistribute the content freely. People could even re-edit the content and create new and interesting works. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Isn't the idea behind public broadcasting to serve the public, instead of seek profits?
Instead, the "public" broadcasters have developed the same control-freak mentality of the rest of the media that effectively opposes the very idea of a public domain and favors every byte having a DRM restricted ownership sticker. If that is the case, what is the point of the public subsidizing these broadcasters... and why should they even exist?
The troll is not trying to provide an actual, helpful mirror. He is trying to drive business towards his hosting service. I wish people would start modding this idiot down, especially when he makes the same post several times in the same article.
> Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM).
WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK? the public tide in this country (UK) is more anti than pro, and Labour/TB have been doing their level best to destroy the BBC's credibility*.
I on the other hand am very pro-BBC. The only slight problem I have with it is that the fee is the same for everybody (i.e. a poll tax).
* Whether or not Andrew Gilligan exaggerated his story, the government (and Alistair Campbell non-gov) made an enormous issue out of it in order to discredit the BBC, as the charter is coming up for renewal soon. The bastards.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
The BBC is without a doubt the best TV outfit in the world: are the commercial free stations any good??? The BBC is an independant company with no political agenda unlike corporate-run channels in the US, so the 131/year is definitely worth it. Plus, I just avoided paying my bill for the past 6 months so I saved over 60!!! Its not the BBC that asks for the money: its the UK government. We have to pay road tax to drive a car too, shame our roads arent as good as our TV!!
Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM)
so a government monopoly is somehow better than a private monopoly?
Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM).
The BBC seem to operate under the principal that if a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing well.
from8 / :
http://p2p.weblogsinc.com/entry/672947338275913
The most significant revelations were concerning the protection of the content. All content will be DRM'd, only available for a limited period time, once downloaded. As expected, it will also only be available to UK broadband users. In a break with the BBC's long-standing support of Real, Microsoft DRM will be used for the technical trial, but it appears that no final decision has been made.
As was known previously, the EPG (Electronic Programming Guide) will cover fourteen days; seven looking forward and seven backward. The programs that have been broadcasted will be downloadable to the computer simply by clicking on them. A preview of a piece can be watched before committing to download a complete show.
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
The BBC is a public service. Think of it like you would the NHS (the UK's National Health Service). You may never get ill, and if you you may go to a private health care provider, but it's always there just in case.
I don't want to split hairs here; but it's the British Broadcasting "Corporation" not *company. And they aren't even a corporation in that sense. They are a governmental body, funded through the TV licence in the UK.
In other words, it isn't a "company" bringing us this innovation it's the socialistic government enterprise of an advanced european welfare-state.
No, this isn't a communist vs capitalist troll, it's just an area where capitalist media organisations (in their current incarnation) just have too much inertia to innovate like this.
And it's worth remembering, sometimes paying taxes to a government body (a properly set up one) gets you a kick-arse service, and a whole heap of kudos and nods from the rest of the world. Why go for laize-faire capitalism or stalinistic dictatorship.... when you can have the mix of both as you choose. And the evidence seems to be that it's better to pay more taxes than most of us do.
RULE BRITANNIA!!
Man, I hope this catches on in the U.S. with cable stations like Comedy Central and the Sci-Fi Channel. Those two and a handful of others are the only reason I still subscribe to cable. And it pisses me off to no end that I have to pay $40/month for a "standard package" which includes 60 or so channels I DON'T watch.
Individual cable broadcast companies taking this initiative will bring about the same effect as the a la carte cable service many Americans have been asking for. Anyone with broadband Internet access will have access to only the shows they want, on demand, and priced individually.
The only indication of quality in the article was this:
Mr Highfield said the quality of the programmes will be so high that the experience of watching a show on a PDA will be similar to viewing an in-flight film on screens in the backs of seats on passenger aircraft.
In-flight movies are not a real high bar to set..
I would be interested in getting episodes of "The Office" this way, if they were available in their native 16:9 format (encoded in 16:9, not letterboxed), and in a quality comparable to DVD.
So if the licence fee is worth it, why are you avoiding to pay it? Regardless of BBC's "best-in-the-world" quality (which is a dubious claim to begin with), the point is that it's ridiculous that the government makes you pay for it, when OTHER viable options are available.
"Where do you think "The Weakest Link" and "Coupling" came from?"
And, "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," "Men Behaving Badly," "Dear John," etc. Then you could add failed Americanized pilots of British shows such as "The Office," "Red Dwarf," and "AbFab." Wasn't there an American version of "Faulty Towers" too?
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Now, for the sake of fairness, let's have a list of US TV programs I will watch on purpose:
Conclusion? The BBC will at least give some series a fighting chance instead of killing them in their infancy. Does this mean that the British shows are always higher quality? Not necessarily, but I'd be a lot happier to pay the TV tax than I would be to pay for American cable...
I, for one, welcome our new cyber-BBC programming overlords.
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
There seem to be quite a few Americans here who think BBC produces better quality programs than US tv. But remember, when you view something from abroad, it is usually selected because it is the cream of the crop, it does not nessesarily reflect the overall quality of BBC television. I'm sure few of you would care to see hours of snooker or cricket. Likewise, foreign countries usually buy the best American shows. Foreigners who only see the Sopranos, West Wing, etc. may conclude that US tv is of pretty high quality.
Great, now I can start another lost episode of Dr. Who, when ever I want.
-Patrick
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
"BBC hopes to avoid being left at the mercy of a software giant such as Microsoft"
In that context, what format are they using? Anyone know?
They use Real format right now but aren't they switching to WMA?
That, or his jockey shorts are a few sizes too small.
Why should paying a license fee to the government be inherently better than paying Microsoft? Or, in general, any closed source company?
When I was in Europe, all I could say is "please god Please let me get back to my 500 channels of McDonalds, Wal-Marts, and pure-T drivel, because this shit I"m having to watch over here is BOR-ING."
Government doesn't do a better job than private enterprise.
Isn't the BBC some kind of socialist, government supported thing?
I thought only free-market, capitalist companies in competion innovated? That's what I was taught in my American public school. There's just no reason to improve if you've got a steady, government supported income. You have to be in blood thirsty battle for market dominance to justify doing anything other than resting on your laurels and IP rights. Right?
Where's the innovation in product from the American networks?
Where's customer focus from American media?
Where's the desire to satisfy customer desire in America?
(It's sarcasm. I love my country.)
Does anyone know if this will also provide closed captioning for the deaf too ?
Terrestrial channels are: BBC One, BBC Two, ITV, Channel 4 and five.
BBC One & Two are paid for from the licence fee. ITV and five are fully commercial stations. Channel 4 pumps its profits back into production (AFAIK).
We have satellite TV (Sky) which has literally hundreds of channels. We have British equivalents of HBO (Sky Movies) and ESPN (Sky Sports).
Cable provides most satellite channels.
A full list of all satellite channels aimed at the UK audience si available at Lyngsat. In addition, you can also pick up hundreds of European channels.
The license fee is not payable by everyone, people over 75 do not pay, and blind people have a 50% discount. TV Licensing
ah, mod points
Up until a couple of years ago there were only 5 terrestrial chanels available through an antenna, with satellite and cable optional on top of that. Satellite here is run by Rupert Murdoch, owner of fox etc, and cable is run by 2 or 3 british companies.
BBC america is pretty bad compared to the regular beeb: there are so many shows I really missed last year when I was in the US. US tv is a completely differnt style of programming - UK tv only has adverts every 15 mins, rather than the 6 adverts per minute drivel on US tv.
From living on both sides of the pond, I can objectively say that US tv is really bad. Im sure if I spent any more time watching it, it would probably induce mind-rot and would have to use one of the 400 sponges I bought from QVC for $9.95 to mop my Coca-cola & big-mac fuelled brain off the carpet.
I don't get the BBC on my regular old cable. This would give me a chance to watch some of their shows. If people like their shows in an area then maybe they could expand into that market and already have an audience.
Evolution or ID?
No, BBC is not the only tv channel availbale in the Uk.
You've got a choice of:
Terrestrial (ie down an aerial channels):
BBC1 - General news, prime time soaps etc..
BBC2 - Science, documentaries, art, etc...
ITV - 'Commercial' tv, like BBC1 but with adverts
Ch4 - 'Commercial' tv - all sorts from comedy to documentaries and lots of reality tv
Ch5 - 'Commercial' tv - The newest terrestrial channel, I don't get in Wales but its supposed to be crap.
Then you have FreeView, which is digital TV from the BBC, which you need a set top box for, but there's no subscription fee. It has all the above plus more BBC channels like BBC News 24 and BBC Parrliament and kids channels.
There's also Sky, which is satellite TV and is the most popular choice. You have literally hundreds of channel and most of the popular sports programmes are now broadcast through sky. It's about 30 UKP a month.
Then there's cable, which is basically the best of Sky but available via cable rather than satellite, plus the freeview channels. It's only available in cable areas, which isn't all of the UK.
Hope that helps.
On normal analogue antenna - 5 channels, BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV, Channel 4 and Five.
On Digital Freeview (antenna) - something like 20, including ITV 2, BBC 3 and 4, BBC News 24 etc.
On Sky (Satellite) or NTL/Telewest (digital cable) - I have over 300. Sat/Cable has a monthly fee, freeview costs around 60 one-off, and analogue services are free (except for the license fee).
Check out www.channel4.com, www.itv.com, www.five.tv and www.sky.com to see what we get.
BBC America is pants and has none of the good stuff from the BBC over here (I lived Stateside for 4 years, so I'm not just guessing). IMHO the license fee is well worth it, and it's not like Big Brother comes looking for non-payers much anyway.
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
Come on Britain! Get rid of your nanny socialist state and join the rest of the Western world
Unfortunately most of the "western world" is moving towards socialism, not away from it.
Casual Games/Downloads
I just paid mine. For crying out loud. A good thing for *you* perhaps Mr American. I don't even watch BBC TV very often, I really only turn on the box for Sky Football and few other odds and ends. Theres no way I watch 10 quid a month's worth of BBC (equivalent to x3 pay-per-view films).
I avoided paying it cos im a panny-scrimping student!!! If anyone knows of a better channel than the BBC, I would really be interested to hear their opinion on the matter.
I freely admit that the main reason I pay for satellite programming in the US is to get BBC America. I'd be willing to drop back to a minimal package (so I still got Food Network, HGTV, TLC and the Discovery Channel), if I could get BBC shows over the internet.
As I see it, I'd get more offerings (not just the stuff that's on BBC America, as it'd be all BBC programming), it'd be more current (eg, Coupling when it airs in the UK... no delay before it's shown on BBC America), and I could set my own relative schedule. [so long as I download 'em within a week of them being on the air].
I would think that in the case of BBC America, it's the BBC competing with themselves, and it wouldn't be as much of an issue. [whereas shows like Scrapheap Challenge (aka Junkyard Wars) or Robot Wars are shown in the US on non-BBC channels], so they might have some issues with those.
I'm most interested in the shows that they don't show in the US, or if they do, it's on PBS stations that aren't in my local area.
Of course, I'd probably only be willing to spend about $200-300/yr for the service. I don't know if they'd make a profit at that rate, on top of the other issues. How much is the BBC license fee?
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
*But* stop wasting the license fee on silly shit like this and get us Premiership Football back on our screens. When I can settle down to Liverpool vs. Middlesborough without having the dread hand of Robert Murdoch in my wallet, then we can talk innovation and about a shiny bright little future.
The BBC have no sense of what the priorities of 30 million of their customers are.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
Policies
Advertising
The BBC is not permitted to carry advertising or sponsorship on its public services. This keeps them independent of commercial interests and ensures they can be run instead to serve the general public interest.
If the BBC sold airtime either wholly or partially, advertisers and other commercial pressures would dictate its programme and schedule priorities. There would also be far less revenue for other broadcasters.
The BBC is financed instead by a TV licence paid by households. This guarantees that a wide range of high quality programmes can be made available unrestricted to everyone.
The licence fee also helps support production skills, training, local or minority programmes and other services which might not otherwise be financed by the economics of pay-TV or advertising.
The BBC runs additional commercial services around the world. These are not financed by the licence fee but are kept quite separate from its public services. Profits are used to help keep the licence fee low so that UK licence fee payers can benefit commercially from their investment in programmes.
BBC
Not strickly true. The BBC is controlled by the DG (Director General). He is hand picked by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors are given their posts by the culture secretary. The License fee is not a tax, you only have to get one if you have a TV set.
Even though a lot of popular American programs are available illegally on the net, there isn't currently a reliable way to get BBC-produced TV programs (although I'm sure they do exist, they're just nowhere near as common). Even if they were though, the fact remains that most current TV downloads are illegal. As a BBC license-fee payer, I would love to be able to obtain episodes legally like this, and it's good to see that the BBC seems to have their customers interests in mind.
and if this is the best way to get it, I'm all for it.
BBC - PLEASE make EE available via a pay-for mechanism (reasonable pricing please!) to those of us outside the UK. Your namesake BBCAmerica has seen fit to cancel it last year, ensuring that pretty much everything on that channel is something they can rerun 100 times a month (changing rooms, ground force, etc). If they could rerun one month of news programming for a full year to keep costs down they'd probably do that too.
I'm sure there are *many* people outside the UK willing to pay $150/year for downloadable EE.
(I can't believe Laura just died either!)
What I don't get is with programs like EE, why *not* sell them online? They're just sitting on a shelf. It's just something which is costing them money to archive, and it's never replayed again (maybe on UK Gold now, but certainly not anywhere outside the UK on a regular basis).
creation science book
sorry, I was ranting and slipped. Ah OK, I'm joking really, but one problem with the BBC is that they claim that rejecting what the market wants is part of their charter as a public broadcaster. The football thing is illustrative of their oversight in this regard. In truth most people want better programs from the BBC, not an internet feed or whatever. I know many readers are biased towards tech (well all readers here) but proprotionally this is a small fraction of the people the BBC should be serving. There are many things they should be fixing first before rolling out new services.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
For its own peculiar reasons, beeb shows tend to have extremely short seasons (four to eight shows is not atypical). This likely has positive effects on the quality of the shows.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
I don't mean to offend, but if you missed your 500 channels of drivel, why didn't your get cable or satellite? I lived for over a decade in the UK (and some time in Italy too) and saw quite a bit of boring TV, but always appreciated the BBC even when I had hundreds of channels at my click-and-call. Also, for the record, the while the BBC is a public service, it is not govenrment per se. It is independent - witnessed by the tendency of both Labour and Conservative governments to complain about it for being too anti-governemnt. While I generally think that government should restrict its actions to a very small range of activities, the BBC and its independent funding (the "license" which I disliked paying - call it a user-fee, call it anything but a license) is able to take risks that advertising supported broadcasters do not seem to be able to do. Sure they produce some turkeys, but so does HBO.
I've finally got around to changing my sig
So do I (re: value), however, they have 9 radio stations, not 7 (BBC Asian Network and 1Xtra)
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
"Extracting a tax for simply owning a television set creates a captive audience and the quality of the programming suffers as a result. For every Monty Python's Flying Circus there are countless shows that wouldn't make it past the pilot phase here in the states. If the quality of programming on BBC-america is any indication, brits are being robbed."
And you think the quality of programming is better and fair? Last time I checked online, we had a great show on the WB Network that was cancelled despite increased ratings and a rabid fan base. That show was called "Angel." The American system is a joke. 6,000 homes participating in the idiotic Nielsen's system is considered more accurate (when they write things down by pencil and paper) over 1 million homes with TiVos that report even show (and commercial) watched? I would gladly pay fees to make sure my programs remain on the air instead of watching the entire TV land become the 24 hour bastion of "reality" programming. If anything, its us Americans who are being robbed.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
http://www.ntlhome.co.uk/ntl_tv/index.asp?cust=ntl com_tviconlink
Extracting a tax for simply owning a television set...
As has been pointed out in other threads, the licence is for as many TVs as you like in a single household, NOT per TV.
You should see the (lack of) quality on our major commercial analogue channels then; one wants to be a 24x7 soap/Hitler/pr0n/US TV Movies channel, and the other is dumbed-down sensationalist news/soap/reality TV/blockbuster hollywood movies.
Only Channel 4 has any quality programmes that compare with the BBC's, and lots of those are being bought in from the likes of the Discovery and History channels these days (it's easy to tell them from the programmes they make themselves as the bought-in programmes repeat themselves every 5-10 minutes for where the ad. breaks would be).
I'm curious about something, and maybe some of you british slashdotters can answer some questions for me. What else is there on the air other than the BBC?
BBC1: soap, blockbuster films, major sporting/cultural events, sport, investigative journalism, news, popular comedy, minority sports (e.g. darts, snooker). Funded by licence fee.
BBC2: documentaries, arts, investigative journalism, economics/finance, science, history, art/cult films, new comedy. Funded by licence fee.
ITV: soap, reality TV, sport, blockbuster films, sport, sensationalist news, regional content. Privately owned and funded exclusively by advertising.
Channel 4:much like BBC2, but more mainstream content (e.g. some soaps). Minority sports include horse racing and various non-European sports. Publically owned, but funded exclusively by advertising.
Channel 5:soap, Hitler documentaries, softcore pr0n, old blockbusters, US TV movies. Privately owned, funded by advertising (and deep pockets, since the last I heard, it wasn't doing very well).
With Freeview (free-of-subscription charge digital TV), you get BBC News 24, The History Channel, Parliament, CBeebies (kids TV) and some ITV and BBC channels mostly used for repeats right now. Oh, and the usual set of home shopping channels and suchlike.
How many channels do brits generally have to choose from?
I would guess most AB social class homes only have the five broadcast analogue channels I described earlier, or maybe Freeview.
Is cable TV common, and if so what kind of channels are there on it?
Other social classes are more likely to have Murdoch-owned SkyTV with programming most North Americans would be familiar with, I'm sure - Fox, SciFi, Nick, etc.
Do you get HBO?
Channel 4 and, especially, Channel 5 show quite a lot of HBO-sourced material. I think HBO is available from Sky.
ESPN?
Sports? Dunno. A lot of the content wouldn't be of much interest in the UK. Soccer has a much bigger following here than American Football, Basketball, etc. and SkySports + BBC + ITV cover that well.
I was told when I was a little kid that the BBC was the ONLY channel available over there. I find that hard to believe. Imagine if the only channel americans had to watch was PBS.
No, that's absolutely correct. We don't have running water, sanitation, or electricity either. Also, we all have tea with the Queen each week, after kissing her feet. ;-)
--
Yes, I don't have to watch football. I could devote my weekends to travelling to more games. But it is our national sport, so its not like I could be considered unusual in this.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
Channel 4 is also partially funded by government (not sure if this comes from the licence fee or other source though) so it can make programs which companies may not necessarily like to put adverts in/fund the full whack.
IMHO commercial funding of programming ! (necessarily) = Good programming.
I think it is a fact some programs could never get the commercial funding to cover production costs so (in a purely per-program-profit business model) wouldn't be made, though they may serve to educate, inform and add perspective... TV has a public role, if TV is purely commercially funded TV will act to promote the adverts and no more.
"WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK? the public tide in this country (UK) is more anti than pro, and Labour/TB have been doing their level best to destroy the BBC's credibility*.
:0
I on the other hand am very pro-BBC. The only slight problem I have with it is that the fee is the same for everybody (i.e. a poll tax)."
Even though I do not support your political views, I will support you on the BBC license if it'll return the good Doctor on his quest to fight injustice throughout the galaxy. Iraq's WMD is in E-Space, by the way.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
On a related point the analogue signal is due to be switch off here in the UK in 2010 (or there abouts). The BBC is heavily involved in a move over to digital transmission with Freeview. There is no monthly cost (above the license fee) for this system. Recently a company called TopUp TV has started to provide paid-for extra channels on freeview which require a decoding card to be perchased. This is something the BBC don't want as it starts to ask the question "do we really need a fixed license fee or could the BBC go paid-for viewing?" Fortunatley for the BBC there aren't (yet at least) many freeview boxes with the ability to use the decoding cards. Now if they also allow people to buy and download shows what production is left that can't be quantified and charged for? Radio? - its just a matter of time? ...
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
Of course lots of the good programs could never get shown on broadcast TV in the USA - they freak out over a single female nipple after all.
Answers;
Q. What else is there on the air except the BBC?
A. On terrestrial analogue (this will take some time) which you get through your aerial you can get
BBC1, BBC2, ITV (commercial), C4 (pseudo-commercial), and Channel 5 (definately commercial). On terrestrial digital (again, via the aerial), all of the above plus BBC3, BBC4, C-Beebies, BBC News 24, UK History, QVC (shopping) plus others. These are all free to view (i.e. no subs.). On satellite or cable digital, the above (free) plus lots of others (prob. all the American channels within reason). Digital radio is also included for all but analogue.
Q. Is cable TV common + what kind of channels?
A. Yes-ish. Common probably means 5-20%. Similar channels to the US but far fewer commercials and
many more movie channels, pay per view etc...
Q. HBO? ESPN?
A. I do not know these. I have watched American TV several times. For extremely short periods of time.
Q. Imagine if the only channel Americans had to watch was PBS?
A. When driving around Hawaii's Big Island, I was very glad that PBS *radio* was available (since the hire car had a radio and cassette player - lofi.)
Q. For every Monty Python's Flying Circus there are countless shows that wouldn't make it past the pilot phase...
A. Yup. Thats why you can instead listen to the fabulous BBC radio instead, even pseudo-timeshifted via the web interface, for
free.
Q. Extracting a tax...creates a captive audience...quality of the programming suffers...
A. BBC2, which only recently has attempted popularity, does not suffer from this. Diversity abounds - for example until recently Anglo-Indian culture was only aired on the radio and BBC2. [Note; Indian's/Pakistani's/Bangledeshi's represent approximately 1 million in a population of 60 million]
My own tuppence: American TV is awful. British TV is becoming Americanised, and this is especially true for the commercial channels. For example, Sky One (digital cable or satellite) is essentially American re-runs. Why American TV is awful is its lack of diversity. Not that a lot of European TV is different.
P.S. Anyone else have problems with the realplayer plugin and Mozilla on Mac OS X?
-- Thus conscience does make cowards of us all - Hamlet
Time Warner Austin, for example, has about 10 free On Demand channels -- including BBC America. They've been available for at least a year or so, and most of the shows from BBC America are available for on-demand viewing. It would be interesting to see if they will continue to expand "classical" on demand via cable companies
Hyperom.com
Dare I say you are obviously from the USA? Most other governments are in fact capable of setting up organizations that are independent of 'themselves' (or even hostile toward the government - as the BBC sometimes is).
The US government seems to be singularly incapable of this. Indeed, I have the impression that 'separation of powers' or is a concept that the USA never embraced at all.
Indeed. Well spotted to all those chimps that pointed out that BBC stands for "British Broadcasting Corporation". 10/10 for general knowledge and 5/10 for understanding.
:)
The BBC is operated under two constitutional documents: its Royal Charter and the Licence and Agreement. The Charter defines the BBC's objects, powers, obligations and the sources and uses of its income, while the Licence and Agreement sets the terms and conditions under which it must operate.
"Subject to the general law of the land and the provisions of the Charter and the Licence and Agreement, the BBC has full editorial and managerial independence in its day-to-day programme and other activities"
For more information visit this terribly informative site, which will doubtless also explain all about impartiality and public service broadcasting for you.
If you don't get even the exercise of walking to the pub (and standing) you will end up looking like a Texan.
Hmm. I think it hurts the USA generally to accuse someone of wishing the US ill when all he was doing was making a simple statement about US government and corporate foreign policy.
I listen to BBC radio 4 a lot as they have a lot of interesting programs on. I read news.bbc.co.uk a lot as well. Can't say I watch BBC TV much but I don't really like watching TV anyway. I'd pay my license fee even if I didn't own a TV. I'm more scared of privately run companies than a publicly financed and accountable company.
Quid pro quo - they give us spooks and military satellite systems and we give them culture like Telliy Tubbies, Bob the Builder and Fimbles (what was they smokin ?).
Fair trade !
If you are a fan of sane copyright laws, avoid Walt Disney's ABC network. If the poor quality of ABC's shows hasn't already turned you off, here are some more reasons not to watch ABC.
Neither do people who don't own a TV.
ITYM 'Come on US! Get a proper welfare state and join the rest of the western world.'
The western world includes the US, Canada, Western Europe and (probably) Australia and New Zealand. Of the above, how many don't have socialised healthcare?
..... how many minutes of advertisements does the BBC show in a day?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I should point out the UK Writers Guild (not the American Writers Guild) is extremely pissed off about this move, because writers won't be getting repeat fees (which can be a large source of income). However, the British Guild has far less power than the American one, meaning not much action can take place over the programmes on demand...
Korean Broadcasting Service has been doing this for at least a couple years. They seem to be about ten years ahead of us on everything -- almost all computers have a TFT screen hooked up to them, everyone has cell phones, etc., etc., etc. And they have one of the most attractive phonetic alphabets around ^_^
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
Thanks for pointing this out. As soon as I read the first post about C4, I remembered seeing some sort of disclaimer to that effect on my Father Ted DVD sets, so it made sense immediately. I've been trying not to fall into the trap of believing that any & all TV coming out of the UK is spawned by the beeb, but I think I got dazzled by the BBC logo and ignored the "distributed by" on the shiny packaging.
Hmmm...easily distracted by shiny packaging. Could this be the problem with the majority of TV viewers in the US?
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
but if they want to get good throughput on a mass scale just use a broadcast protocal.
Last time I checked, hardly any ISPs had implemented IPv4 Multicast because nobody had figured out how to bill for it.
Even better, team up with ISPs (a la BBC Broadband) and deliver content at ISP node level rather than originate it from their own servers.
The Americanese word for that is AKAMAI(tm).
And don't get me started about their broadband service.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Doesn't Google do the same thing?
When is the last time you saw shareholder toss out the, executive or Board of directors of a company?
Major shareholders of The Walt Disney Company managed to demote former chairman Michael Eisner to CEO.
Except it's run from Brussels not Rome. You've read too many Omen books.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
err, comedy central shows are available on the web for free, albiet in Real format.
http://www.comedycentral.com/
Time to lose your cable TV : )
The quality is far superior on US TV.
I for one would rather watch "Crossfire" and "Who's gonna marry a midget" than Monty Python or BBC News.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK? the public tide in this country (UK) is more anti than pro, and Labour/TB have been doing their level best to destroy the BBC's credibility*.
Personally I think the anti-BBC sentiment is spin. And just who who are the biggest spinners in the country? And which government friendly media mogul dislikes competition with the Beeb?
Most people I know think the BBC is good for us. Yet, sadly, most people I know also believe what they're told by the media. So they truly believe the majority of public opinion is anti-BBC.
Which leaves poor old Aunty rather defenceless when President Blair comes along with his chopper.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
Can you explain why you come out in favor of The Walt Disney Company's policy related to copyright term extension lobbying?
can't seem to find out whether this is going to be a Windows-only thing -- I seriously hope not -- or if the BBC is going to support the Open Source movement {though the Dirac project would suggest that someone at the BBC already understands the dangers of allowing for-profit concerns to dictate standards}.
:) Quicker than waiting for them to come around on UKTV Gold, as well!
I think this will be sort of similar to Sky Plus, but just for BBC content, and using your Internet connection instead of a Minidish. And, of course, it's the BBC, so no adverts
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM)."
Yes, a good thing for all the Americans etc. that get access to all these online services without paying the license fee (currently Real Video feeds, BBC news etc). Its perfectly feasible to block access using country to IP mapping, look at the Apple music store (and thats another thing that makes my blood boil..), but will they do it? Will they my eye; even though I can't see a reason why not. Is this what I'm paying my every increasing license fee for? Where is Mary Whitehouse when you need her?
The reason he was comparing the CBC to the BBC is that they are both publicly funded and government owned television stations.... NOT that their name start with their respective countries ( which is where I think you got the ABC reference ).
The main difference between them ( aside from the obvious nationality and cultural difference ) is that in Canada there is no "TV tax" like in the UK, so the CBC doesn't have as many dollars to play with, and thus it airs commercials. The BBC has no commercials AFAIK, at least not the BBC news stations.
You are the very definition of the fat-arse, lazy moron yank with delusions of godhood... and like most of your ilk, you have absolutely no concept of history or your place in it.
Kiss my arse and lick my boots, yank.
Actually, England is one of the only countries that is supporting the U.S. (i.e. Emperor Bush).
The EU is run from Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. From the europa.eu.int website :
European Parliament : The monthly plenary sessions, which all MEPs attend, are held in Strasbourg (France) - the Parliament's "seat". Parliamentary committee meetings and any additional plenary sessions are held in Brussels (Belgium), whilst Luxembourg is home to the administrative offices (the "General Secretariat").
European Commission : The "seat" of the Commission is in Brussels (Belgium), but it also has offices in Luxembourg, representations in all EU countries and delegations in many capital cities around the world.
FYI it's an American thing. Americans use the plural for single entities composed of multiple people, whereas we use the singular. Gramatically both are correct, it just depends where your are. Deal with it and move on.
Surely there is a major risk the BBC is exposing itself to here... if the trial is successful, and the BBC decides to go 'on demand', who will need a TV anymore? If people can just download a program, then they don't need a TV to watch it. If people stop needing TV's, then no licence fee is payable in the UK, and the BBC stops receiving most of its money.
How would the BBC solve this? Argue for a PC Licence?!? This would be very untenable as a PC has so many more uses then a TV.
Would the BBC website become a members only pay site, and then be in breach of its charter?
I'm a cable subscriber. I pay about $100/mo for digital cable and internet access. I dont have a TiVo and my HTPC died. Until I get either of those back up and running I've been downloading The Shield, Enterpeise, and 24. Illegal, maybe. Fair use, might be, do I feel guilty, not when my cable bill comes every month. Put the shows I want on the net and charge a small subscription and we'll talk. I commend the BBC for their efforts and hope it crosses the Atlantic. Kind of analogous to the old days when I had a bunch of techno CDs that got scratched up so I downloaded them again on P2P. I always said if they would come up with a way for me to get what I want online I would. Your looking at a happy iTunes user.
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
I can't wait for this (assuming they allow US viewers to access the service) because two of my favourite BBC shows, Dead Ringers and Red Cap, NEVER seem to show up on Bit Torrent.
Given that I'm not going to have ANY cable service after the 11th, I'm all for anything that lets me keep on watching my fave shows
Actually, I *am* able to get most of them (I had a source from Nov - March daily) although I missed half of April. Anyone looking for EastEnders via FTP, give me a holler at mgkimsal2@yahoo.com
creation science book
Helping defend us. We provided troops in West Germany too you ignorant moron. As for the bloody Marshall Plan, well it would've been a bit fucking stupid for the US to let it's major trading partners collapse into depression now wouldn't it. Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for what your ancestors did for my ancestors , but you can't expect us to kiss your collective ass for all eternity, especially when you're wrong.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
The Norwegian Broadcast Company (NRK, similar license model as BBC) has done something similar for a while now. All the programs they produce inhouse is aired live online, and is also stored in the archive. so you can access it whenever you like.
For the moment this is free for everybody (registration required though), and can be reached abroad (handy for me as an exchange-student in the UK).
-- If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
"WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK? the public tide in this country (UK) is more anti than pro, and Labour/TB have been doing their level best to destroy the BBC's credibility"
Go on, admit it. You work for the BBC.
The BBC receive a lot of flak, but they are good at recognising market trends before they happen. They played an important role in Prestel and some of the pre-internet networks, they recognised the Internet and registered their domain name in 1991, and created a web portal when most of the other broadcasters were trying to find the "any" key.
I don't mind the licence fee, though I do wish they would update their system to recognise when you bought a licence in a particular month. I bought my TV licence on March 26th last year and received a letter telling me I should renew it on March 1st 2004. Surely, it would not be difficult to store the day, so my licence is valid until March 25th 2004?
Plus 46 (perhaps more) local radio stations.
Decode these
Not to mention All in the Family (Til Death Do Us Part), Sanford & Son (Steptoe and Son) and Three's Company (Man about the House).
Whats the deal with Red Dwarf anyway? I keep hearing about it here on /. as some kind of awesome SciFi show. So I went and downloaded a bunch of episodes and discover that its kind of a horribly cheesy scifi spoof comedy. Its got a freakin' laugh track! Its even got that boob from Robot Wars (or whatever the show is called over there).
"Not to mention All in the Family (Til Death Do Us Part), Sanford & Son (Steptoe and Son) and Three's Company (Man about the House)."
You name off any more and we can assign blame for inflicting sitcoms on the American public to the British.
I forgot to add "The Kumars" to failed American pilots of established British shows. It was changed to "The Ortegas" with Cheech Marin starring; so instead of an Indian family like the original, you had an Hispanic family.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Nice try, troll. But: the BBC is independently controlled, and socialism != authoritarianism. Take a introductory politics course. And learn to spell, you fuckwit.
Yeah, because nobody posts TV shows on Usenet or Bittorrent or Kazaa or...
They better get on that, or someone's gonna start making that stuff available to download for FREE!
"Whats the deal with Red Dwarf anyway? I keep hearing about it here on /. as some kind of awesome SciFi show. So I went and downloaded a bunch of episodes and discover that its kind of a horribly cheesy scifi spoof comedy. Its got a freakin' laugh track! Its even got that boob from Robot Wars (or whatever the show is called over there)."
Red Dwarf is sci-fi comedy. And some of the episodes were perhaps the funniest stuff that's ever been on television (at least IMHO). So if you don't like Red Dwarf, you probably never liked any of Douglas Adams work either (if you read any of it) so you should probably stay away from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" when it is released theatrically next year (or in 2006). Come to think of it, scratch "Monty Python" from your list of things to watch too.
And "that boob from Robot Wars" is on that show because of the popularity he received from Red Dwarf. As is the actor who portrayed Lara Croft's butler in the two Tomb Raider flicks (probably the only decent thing about the films beside Ms. Jolie herself), and the actor who portrayed one of the more popular vampires of 'The Blood Pact' in "Blade 2."
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
"I for one would rather watch "Crossfire" and "Who's gonna marry a midget" than Monty Python or BBC News."
You have my condolences if you are at all serious...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
And I think the world service is funded by tax payers directly unlike the bbc itself which is funded by the license fee which is not a tax. You don't have to have a televison you know and I know a number of people who don't.
if you really want to know
I'm not saying its without merit, I enjoyed watching a couple of the episodes, but calling it Sci-Fi is like calling 'Survivor' 'Reality'. It's straight-up comedy and has nothing to do with sic-fi.
I did get a kick out of watching the dude with the dreads being remote-controlled and trying to kill his shipmates in one episode, him being the host of robot wars and all.
I'll watch a few more episodes, maybe it will grow on me.
If the EU made a start with what should have happened in the 1930's if Stalin and Hitler hadn't betrayed the planet, namely realising we in Europe need Russia and Russia needs us, and we don't need the US as much as you think we ought, then I'd be a happier bunny. Oh, and if you're talking about debts owed, even if you weight the figures downward according to Stalin being a murdering psycho, the Soviet Union saved our asses by virtue of its millions who died fighting fascism, you lot are just opportunists in comparison - if anyone were dickheaded and immature enough to engage in a pissing contest about who paid the higher price. Which isn't to deny my gratitude toeach and wevery US soldier who fought in WW@, which is real, but they fought tfor the truth and you, sir, wouldn't know it if it bit you in the arse
I have visions of robotic looking people staring gormlessly at their PDAs on busses. Carry around your personal passifier!
WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK?
Oops! You got your words wrong. Instead of "realise", I think you meant to say, "think". Realise implies that there's something truthful about it. It's never ever an "unmitigated Good Thing" for you to take MY money. I don't care how good the BBC is, I'll choose whether to support it with my money, not you. You keep your grubby mitts on your own damned wallet.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
Companies need to satisfy their shareholders. Their shareholders want more money for their investment, and will constantly pressure management to achieve this. This means that the management will focus on the most popular shows, to the exclusion of less popular shows. Whether you think that ("most popular" == best) is a matter of opinion, I suppose. The BBC, with its licence fee, is not subject to the same pressures regarding the popularity of its programmes, although there is an element of this. And of course there are some British people who think as you do, who would love to get rid of the licence fee.
Why didn't you get cable or a satellite dish? My cable box has > 50 channels, although it's a little while since I flicked all the way through them. There might even be more by now.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
I think the BBC is an object unlike any other in the world.
Take the company I work for.. We deal in disposing waste. Some of our revenue comes from taking care of the local government's home waste recycling centres. They outsource to us essentially.
Now just because part of our revenue stream is based on these contracts that doesn't mean that we're in some way an instrument of the state. Even if all our revenue [1] came from these centres we still wouldn't be an instrument of the state.
The BBC is a corporation in this sense. It's like the government outsourced the job of making an independant media to a company.
Just like our (council) taxes pay for these home waste recycling centres which get outsourced to us. The government taxes the people who watch TV to pay the BBC.
The BBC is different in that it's a company who's existance is mandated in a statute. Does this make the BBC an arm of the state? Well, I don't think that's a question you can answer objectively. I think the best thing to do is look at how successful they are in (part of) their (full) mandate to provide impartial news.
Take the Iraq issue and the Hutton report. The BBC took an anti-government stance with regard to iraq and accussed the government of sexing up the 'dodgy' dossier.
The Hutton report blamed the BBC for the tragedy but it is my opinion (and that of the majority of British) that Hutton wasn't told the whole truth.
In both cases the BBC stood firm against the government. This is what is important! A media that is independant of government and not a whore to a business model. The BBC isn't perfect but it's superior to most other models.
Take a look at Italy if you need more convincing.
Simon
[1] It's quite possible to have all your revenue come from these centres. There are around a thousand of them in England and acquiring the contract for just one site adds an average of 300,000 to your turnover.
It's called BitTorrent and 1TB of server.
Da Blog
If BBC America is pants, then BBC Canada is a wardrobe. Since when is "Due South" a British show?
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
In Iraq, wasn't it the American troops that killed their own side.
Aren't the SAS the best fighting force in the world?
Aren't Americans fat and stupid?
yes,yes,yes.
America is only strong because of its numbers. How is the UK a charity case? 4th richest nation in the entire world, and our country is smaller than most/all of your states.
And your shit at football (soccer).
When was the last time that you personally put your arse on the line for me personally.
Twat.
You pay an annual fee.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I think you missed Japan & Israel.
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
"I'll watch a few more episodes, maybe it will grow on me."
Get prepared for the theatrical release.
http://www.reddwarf.co.uk
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
...I think this guy has it right. We went straight from WW II to WW III and it's been going on for almost half a century. Everyone needs to open their eyes a bit.
Un-news
Why not! There's a SCO one, and they'll be dead and gone soon.
BBC will still be around for a while.
I've got a billygoat you can have, Mr. Troll... ;-)
a) UK TV channels *do* pay for US shows, cash on the nail.
b) $7 trillion that would never have been needed if a bunch of right-wing fanatics hadn't been running the US for 40 years. Mutually-assured destruction requires "mutual" up-arming, and the US always liked going one better on that score. (And oh boy, are the good times rolling again in this presidency!)
c) Sorry, but the UK repaid every last cent from WW2. And the US got a great deal with technology transfer, since the Brits taught the US a whole lot about computers, radar, aircraft design, sub tracking, etc. Oh, and about believing British intelligence reports, after a few unfortunate incidents like Pearl Harbour...
Grab.
Take THAT you socialist european ninnies! Further proof that only the free market can drive innovation and meet consumer demand! Don't worry, I'm sure it will make its way across the pond in a couple.. huh? what? THEY'VE got it first?? Dammit.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
No taxes whatsoever go to subsidizing the BBC. The BBC is funded entirely through the license fee and through selling its content overseas. Indeed, there's more of an argument for saying that cable companies in the UK and US are taxpayer funded (they do tend to receive certain grants from governments in both countries to help them roll out infrastructure) than there is for saying the BBC is.
If you have proof otherwise, by all means post it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There are a few books too. The first one is Red Dwarf: Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers. You'd probably find them more clearly sci-fi.
>>> Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM).
>>WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK?
>Oops! You got your words wrong. Instead of "realise", I think you meant to say, "think".
You are exactly the sort of person who doesn't "realise" how good it is!!!!!!
[I say realise because IMO, it is amazing and everyone who doesn't agree a) is wrong and b) hasn't fully considered the consequences of Sky et al. suddenly having 50% less competition
SURELY NOT!!!!!
LOL - Mr. ego isn't used to being contradicted eh. Tsk tsk.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Personally I think the anti-BBC sentiment is spin. ... Most people I know think the BBC is good for us. Yet, sadly, most people I know also believe what they're told by the media.
at my last job there were 6 of us in the pub one day and the topic of the BBC came up, everybody was slating it apart from me and my boss. I got the impression this was par for the course but who knows
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Everone of them should loose their ability to mod forever, and the ones who moderated my message offtopic - if they were able to read english they would have seen 90% of it was very much on topic.
This is general crap. Yes its just some employees, because its a trial! Once the technical stuff works they'll expand the tests to ordinary people! And if that works they'll go generally online, like they have done with the radio.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
ehm...
50 countries?
you call the Marshall Islands a country? or Tonga? or Macedonia? or Kuwait? or the Federated Stats of Micronesia?
It may be a coalition of 50 countries, out of about 193 existing ones, of which about 90% doesn't even know how to form their own opinion...
Read the link... it's not owned by the government.
It did require an act of parliament to create it, but it's a publically owned company which is financed by it's commercial operations.
They are most certainly NOT a government body!
The BBC is a state-owned broadcaster. This is different to being a government body as they have no remit to serve the government or do what they say.
The governors are supposed to be the independent overseeing body.
>This is The Independent, one of the major newspapers
>in the UK. That's like mirroring the New York Times.
The New York Times gets slashdotted every time it's linked here. All I ever see is a stupid signup screen.
I like my cable modem like crazy, but the same question goes through my mind everytime I here about TV on demand. Why hasn't a cable company used the tech behind broadband to to this? They've got enough room in the wire to do 80 channels analog and still push 8M/min of data back and forth should be able to do some cool things with shows on demand. I know some cable providers offer some stuff on demand, but by combining the two, it seems like a new kind of Cable TV is possible. I'd give them a lot of control due to the more powerful cablebox you'd need, but if they offer a good service, let us decide if we want it. If they offered one version of a show with commercials and a more expensive "version" without, I'd be pretty happy. Just as long as they keep thier hands in the cablebox and keep it away fromt he TV itself, they could do all kinds of fun stuff. Even added features like video conferencing with other people on your cable system would be fun.
Or, how about a community channel that is actaully put up by the community in real time (like bulletin boards or something). Seems liek a lot could be done with the wire currently going into all these houses if you group it all together into a good service.
Even with the setup today, all they'd have to do is switch from thinking of it as a "viewing time" to a "download time" and put some interface on their cable box that hides the details. If I want ot watch the latest Cops, then they can tell me when it will be available to watch. If I want to watch it as soon as it comes out, I can sit there at the right time, if not, I just know that is't been sent to me and I can watch it when I want. I know Tivo's alow this now, but if they did it for us, they'd actually get more customers and less fight all around. They'd screw it up I'm sure, but I'm always curious why they don't try it...
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
1) It's terrorism, not terror. Terror is an emotion; it drives me crazy every time Bush says that we're fighting a war on terror. How would you wage a war on terror - valium?
2) Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, unless you want to get into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
3) There are only 11 nations with more than 500 troops in Iraq. Of these, two of them (Poland and the Netherlands) have plans to withdraw. There used to be twelve, but Spain left, and took with them Honduras and Nicaragua (who together had over 500). Only 5 nations have a militarily significant amount of troops (>1000), although mercenary forces make up the third largest force. About a quarter of the nations who sent troops have already announced withdrawl plans. Several of the nations on the "Coalition" list provided little more than moral support, and some refused to even be named. Quite the coalition, really.
4) Empire: 1a (1): a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority. (Merriam-Webster)
5) Was the onslaught of tyrrany when Baghdad fell without a fight? Or was it when Iraq destroyed their best missiles while an invasion force waited outside? Were they going to attack us with raw sewage, poor healthcare, a crumpling infrastructure, and a military ready to defect at the drop of a hat? You might be interested in looking at what Iraqis think of Bush according to recent polls - even when you factor in the Kurds.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
I'm kind of curious - why is there so much opposition in Britain to the EU? From an outsider's perspective, it sounds like a great way for Europeans to finally attain the sort of economic and military power that the US has. It seems that if Europe doesn't unify, it will continue to be pushed around by the US - both economically and militarily - for quite some time.
In short, what are the problems with it that make people in Britain so reluctant to join?
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for what your
> ancestors did for my ancestors , but you can't expect us
> to kiss your collective ass for all eternity, especially
> when you're wrong.
Brilliantly written. BTW, it's nice to see that it's not the people of Britain who have lost their collective minds by going along with Bush's crusade - just Blair.
About Tony Blair... I'm sorry. It's not that I, as an American, had anything to do with his gaining power or his behavior in office; it's just... well... I feel your pain.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
Since you are blatantly generalising (in "Europe"? Which country, precisely?), let me retaliate in kind:
;)
You are obviously American, so the chance of you speaking any of the European languages to the level required to watch TV is approximately 1/25 (English) + 0.3 / 25 (Spanish) - no wonder you didn't enjoy it
no taxation without representation!
Hey, remember the Canadian startup icravetv.com (archive link) and the fuss it stirred up. It was a good little service for its time, before getting squashed by legalities. Maybe it would be a good time for them to consider starting it up again.
1) Do you *really* want to go into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This will be your last warning if you don't want an all-out debate on the subject.
:P
3 ?ReportID=175">http://people-press.org/reports/dis play.php3?ReportID=175</A>
... Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet; Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees; Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing; Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time; Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear; Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped; Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them; Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture; Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked; Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture; A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee; Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee; Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees. ....
2) What terrorism against Kuwait are you referring to? Iraq invaded Kuwait, but that was war, not terrorism. I can also go into the background of that war if you would like.
3) Ah. So the Vatican is an empire? Tonga is an empire? Luxemburg is an empire? Please.
4) Um, no it isn't. First off, for starters, in the first Gulf War the countries not only let themselves be named. The countries this time have generally contributed in little more than name only; in the first Gulf War, Bangladesh contributed 6,000 troops. Oman gave 25,500. Even Syria gave 17,000 - SYRIA! Even *Afghanistan* gave 300 troops. Don't kid yourself here. Want to take it further? Lets not look at governments, but populations - take a look at the Pew survey of world opinions:
<A HREF="http://people-press.org/reports/display.php
Read it. Be enlightened.
5) Good against evil. Ah. We're good. Got it. Let me quote from the Taguba report, for starters: (*clears throat*). Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol; Pouring cold water on naked detainees; Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; Threatening male detainees with rape; Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick; Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee;
6) Laf, Baghdad fell in a day. You call that a fight? Oh please! We payed them off, and the Iraqi army deserted; if you disagree, you might want to gripe to Tommy Franks, who said as much in an interview with Defense Week.
7) Reasserting the same terms over and over doesn't make you any more correct. If you keep limiting yourself to a small subset of words which drop out of your mouth whenever you open it ("Freedom!" "Dictator!" "Tyrrany!" "Terrorist!" "Liberated!"), you're going to sound more like a keno machine than a debate opponent.
8) WMDs: LAF!!! Read some Hussein Kamal and stop reading that bank robber Chalabi.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
Ah, I was in several hotels, in France, Germany, Holland, and Monte Carlo. There was cable, but only hotel-cable.
I did appreciate waking up in the middle of the night due to my jet lag and finding the hard-core porn.
kerm81 is correct. It's unfair.
Whether the BBC is worth the fee or not is irrelevent.
You may like the BBC, but for people who simple don't want to watch BBC, forcing them to pay the tax just to own a TV is rediculous.
When I first moved away from my home town to work, I was in a place of my own, and literally there was nothing on the BBC I wanted to watch. Additionally, I watched so little TV at the time, that it simply didn't justify the cost, (I found I only watched late night ITV and used to read Oracle teletext), so instead of paying, I had to put my TV back in my parents house.
As someone who didn't listen to radio, or watch BBC, how was that fair ?
And as for the payment being "per household" - that is stretching the term a bit - it's a 'family household'. Unless they've changed the rules in the last few years, people sharing a house that weren't related, or co-habitting had to have individual licenses. - That's the case even if the house is a "normal" house (i.e. not split off into flats)
Sig out of date
Well, that's assuming you want to keep the ad funded market. I don't see TV as intrinsically needing advertisements. That's a historical artifact caused by the lack of DRM in the analog era - if everyone gets the content for free, you can't sell it directly, and hence ads.
With video on demand technology, content producers could just sell their content directly to the customer, ad free. Certainly a LOT simpler, although a real change for the viewer perspective. And could lead to better programming - companies would only make what they thought people would be willing to pay for. Family Guy would do a heck of a lot better than whatever sitcom followed Friends that year.
Today, a TV station is a company that owns bandwidth, gives away content, and sells advertising. The first two could rapidly become different companies, and the advertising part could go away or change dramatically.
My video compression blog
First off, the distubing thing isn't how disliked the US is. The disturbing thing is how disliked the US has become *under Bush*. We've dropped in popularity in Britain from the upper 70s to the mid 40s; in Russia, from over 50% to around 25%; in the arab world, down to the single digits. There has been an incredible and pronounced drop in the US's popularity since Bush took office - and it is such a shame, since we had so much of the world's sympathy after Sept. 11th. The world's people *hate* the US acting like a unilateral cowboy, and that is how we've been behaving - from everything from the ABM treaty to Kyoto to invading Iraq after failing to buy enough UN support for even 50% of the temporary security council members, and then mocking those who didn't join in by refusing them contracts, calling other countries names... well I could go on, but you get the picture. They haven't been angels either, but we are acting straight into the worst possible stereotype of a superpower - the "unilateral bully".
It's not a PR problem. The problem is just as much American as it is foreign. If you read Iraqi blogs, for example, you'd be aware that the Iraqis have been talking about the torture, humiliation, and abuse in Abu Ghraib since the very first prisoners began to emerge from it. While this news may have been a shock to those who just saw the pictures and were forced to accept the truth, anyone who took the time to read what Iraqis had to say, and to actually talk with them, could have recited half of the litany of what has gone on easily. Riverbend, for example, wrote as recently as the 29th about someone she knew whose family was throwin in Abu Ghraib.
This isn't some sort of isolated incident. This is systematic. In Iraq, this didn't come as some sort of shock - it just confirmed what they already knew. While Muqtada al-Sadr isn't widely popular (he's seen sort of as an Iraqi equivalent of Jerry Falwell), the resistance in Fallujah is incredibly popular, and the concept that the Mujahedeen in Fallujah defeated the US army is already almost reaching mythical status. You should have seen some of the pictures from during the conflict... it's sick, really. Every reporter who was in the city not embedded with the US troops withnessed the most horrible things... I don't even know where to start. The dead were buried in two football fields... and at least from what reporters saw, there were as many women and children as men; as many elderly as young. Ambulences were shot to pieces as they tried to get the wounded, and many medics were killed... it'll take too long to discuss, so I'll just stop there.
The resentment in Israel stems almost exclusively from one thing: land. In 1948, Israel kicked out 750,000 people. Picture that - being driven not just off your land, but out of your country. Many other people were driven off their land. Now, to be fair, Jews were kicked off *their* land in much of the rest of the Arab world; this conflict had been simmering for quite a while, it wasn't just something sudden. 78% of the Palestinian's land became Israeli. Many Palestinian descendants still keep the keys to their houses as a reminder of what they lost. However, it got worse. In 1967, Israel siezed the remaining land and began to colonize it ("settlements"). To supply the settlements, they built a network of roads, checkpoints, and buffer zones, and displaced over a hundred thousand more people and siezed about 60% of the remaining farmland of that 22%. And they *still* are taking more and more of this land - every day. They *still* are destroying more and more people's homes. Please don't demean what this act is. These are people with mortgages. With children. Who are losing all of their land, all of their possessions, and are left homeless, destitute, and in debt, with no recompense. And for what? Theft? For God? Just putting the war crimes aside - and believe me, *BOTH* sides have committed enough to last the world a lifetime - the driving force is the fact that people keep
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
1) Israel and Palestine: Read my response to the poster right below yours, and use that as a starter.
2) War != Terrorism. They are not the same. Even imperialist wars are not terrorism. Terrorism is assymetrical warfare targetting civilians.
3) First off, before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was our patsy against Iran. We had warm relations, established by none other than Donald Rumsfeld, a special envoy appointed by Reagan (by the way, if you ever question anything that I say, point it out so I can cross-reference your eyes out). April Glaspie, our ambassador to Iraq, when asked about what the US thought about Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait, and what Iraq deemed as economic warfare (more on that later), when there was a military buildup occurring, stated "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait." Two weeks later, Iraq invaded.
The "economic warfare" referred to was Kuwait's reneging on an agreement with Iraq over the Iran-Iraq war. During the war, both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia gave Iraq large amounts of money to help fund the war against their shared enemy, Iran. At the time, this was presented as a gift. However, after the war - after Iraq had suffered a huge loss of life, money, and infrastructure - both nations reversed themselves, and insisted on repayment. While this is no reasonable justification for war, it does add a gerat deal of context to the situation. And before you start backing up the Kuwaitis indefinitely, forget not that Kuwait, too, is run by a brutal torture-loving dictatorship who steals even *more* wealth from its local population to fund its extravigant lifestyle.
4) The vatican is not an empire by the definition because it does not govern a territory of *great extent* or a *number of territories or peoples*. Please read before you post.
5) By "these guys", do you mean the soldiers in Abu Ghraib, or the Iraqis in the prisons that our soldiers beat and sodomized, many of whom were arrested due to information by informants who get money whether the people they accuse are aquitted or not?
6) US forces spent about a week encircling the city and testing its defenses. On April 8th, US troops pressed into Baghdad full force, and met minimal resistance. The statue fell on April 9th. Attacks at the airport have never ceased, however (in fact, attacks as a whole never ceased); however, there was no "Iraqi military" after that. And, as I mentioned, Franks admitted that the army was paid off. The most fierce fighting was in the south, with the Feyadeen.
7) You just described the definition of a "mantra", to a T.
8) You mean the attacks on the Kurds and the Iranians while we were backing Saddam? What a justification. Before Rumsfeld's first meeting in 1983, the news had already been coming out to international circles about the use of chemical weapons. By his second meeting, the US congress and the United Nations had already discussed the issue. Nonetheless, we continued to support him, and actually *increased* support. We began selling him chemical precursors, all sorts of processing equipment, and even strains of all sorts of deadly biological agents for "research" - in addition to helping secure many international weapons contracts, such as the 2b$ Italian contract to build Iraq's navy, and selling hundreds of millions of dollars of US equipment, such as the Huey helicopters later used during some operations in the attack on Halabja (the most famous gas attack). After the attack reached the world's ears, the US congress drafted a resolution to condemn the attacks, and while not imposing sanctions to Iraq, stop the export of basic arms. The Reagan administration derailed even that. How *DARE* we use this as a justification to invade now! How hypocritical can you get? That's like a mother giving a child a candy bar, and when she eats it, spanking her and sending her to her room. BTW, the reason we had no problem with Iraq attacking the Kurds was that the major Kurdish
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
that might not be necessary, if you make a good value, easy to use product you automatically bypass potential for piracy by making it easier to just do things the legal way.
Since when have you known any media corporation to use that logic?
OT: I'm curious how the price of the TV license is determined? i.e. What is to prevent it from rising beyond its worth (which, granted, is quite subjective)? Not that I don't like BBC programming... I do.
I think you may have misinterpreted the argument I was trying to make, or I did not explain it fully.
My point is that it is a 12 month licence (i.e. 365 days). However, the licence fee system can only handle the mm/yy field. I bought the licence near the end of the month, so have lost 20 days. Imagine you were billed for an Internet connection for three weeks before the line was installed. Would you not be annoyed that you had been charged for use?
Not true. Let me explain a bit better.
The Queen is the British Head of State. She is nothing at all to do with the Government. The Government is led by Tony Blair as Prime Minister.
The State is the machinery and apparatus of government, but it is not the Government. Note the use of capitals.
The BBC is a State-owned broadcaster and its direction is not influenced by the Government. Its independence is meant to be guaranteed by the board of governors.
the football thing was a joke.
soccer is short (!!!) for football association - the full name of english football. Thing is, i hate that name, as do most people in this country.
Can you explain to me (im not taking the piss) how american football is called football.
(YEAH!!! Rubgy!)
do you know how America is the richest? Because its so big. The UK is tiny compared to the US.
Maybe you should go back to texas and fuck your 8 sisters. Fucking hillbilly.
So do it. HBO, Showtime, etc. aren't that expensive.
You want to watch TV for free? Fine, you'll get what you pay for.
You want mandatory TV fees? Then someone else gets what you pay for, and you can take it or leave it.
isn't India an LEDC?
isn't china pretty rich?
well done for being big and still managing to be a MEDC.
What do you know about the UK, except our pm licks George Bush's balls and lets him treat us like a immobile huge aircraft carrier.
are you aware that the USA has never won a war by itself?
OK you're right and I'm wrong!
UK Online says I'm wrong so I'll go back under my rock...
1) That is incorrect that it was just about the Gulf Islands (such as Bubiyan). There was also the disputed border strip and conflicts over the al-Rumeilah oil field.
2) Russia supported Kyoto until the US backed out - same with many other nations. If you're going to require every nation on earth to support something, you're not going to find much of anything that can be called unilateral.
3) As I already pointed out, much of the "coalition of 50+" has already dropped out or is planning to; and to begin with, it consisted of little more than a nod to the world's only superpower, for whom their economic livelyhoods depend, against the wishes of the vast majority of their populations. Surely you recognise and admit this.
4) Your claim about hundreds-year history oppression of Jews is largely incorrect. Jewish populations have lived and worked - and often held some of the most prestegious jobs - in Arab countries since the Diaspora, up until the early 20th century. It really varies according to location.For example, when Muslims took over Syria, the Jewish population celebrated as the previous Christian rule had harshly repressed the Jewish population. In Egypt, al-Hakem harshly repressed both Jews and Christians, but that was from 996 to 1020 AD, but after that, there was very little conflict until the 20th century. Iraq,Yemen, and Morocco were mixed, with the periods of tolerance and intolerance that typically occurs with minority populations the world over. Algeria had largely good conditions for Jews, despite being a minority, until the 20th century. In Tunisia, from the 7th to 13th century, there was relatively little done that was discriminatory against the Jewish population; however, the main oppression was under Spanish rule. From 1837 to 1940, Jews in Tunisia actually began to attain political power, despite being a minority. In Libya, apart from the rule of Ali Pasha, before the 20th century Jews suffered very little persecution - again, despite being a clear minority. So, I have to strongly disagree with your characterization.
Additionally, it seems strange that you would think that ancient history is more relevant than modern history.
5) Both sides have quite legitimate claims that the other side was not living up to their side of the bargain in Oslo. In addition to an economic collapse in Palestine (which helped fuel dissent), the PA became widely unpopular in its authoritarian attempts to crack down on people they thought might prove likely to take part in attacks on Israel. Meanwhile, Israel not only refused to turn over most land to the PA, but the rate of settlement (and corresponding land siezure for new settlements - the KEY element in driving the conflict, and something that has absolutely no excuse) *reduced* the land under Palestinian control, and continued the influx of people into the desparate conditions of the refugee camps. Last, I would *love* to see you back up the claim that the Palestinian government itself decided to attack Israel.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
1) Oh, quit being silly. The Vatican doesn't "rule" in any conventional over anyone outside the vatican. And Luxemberg? And Tonga? All empires, eh?
5 52.stm
q 99 -7.htm
2) Saddam *WAS* anxious to prove that he didn't have weapons. They continually declared the fact that they had destroyed their weapons. They were working with UNMOVIC to try to find a way to prove the quantity that they had destroyed (UNMOVIC had already accepted that sizable amounts had been destroyed, due to residues in the soil, but had been unable to assess the quantity). What more do you want?
3) Why did he block inspections at every turn? *Because The US Was Spying On Iraq*. Paranoid leaders don't like governments that have an openly declared goal of assasinating them to be able to infiltrate their security apparatus. Whoda guessed?
Tons of members of the inspection teams have come out and discussed in the press (how many articles do you want?) how much the US had infiltrated the process. Even Clinton acknowledged at one point that we used UNSCOM to set up eavesdropping equipment (although he falsely claimed that it was in cooperation with UNSCOM, which was a total lie). Here, read what Dr. Ekeus had to say about the US spying: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/2161
We not only spied on Iraq, but intentionally tried to provoke Iraq at times in order to justify strikes, and to appease it at other times to avoid strikes. It increased after Iraq authorized UNSCOM to set up a camera relay to broadcast images of inspection sites out of the country. We modified the relay to sneak out Iraqi military traffic.
Even in the recent conflict, just look at what the teams conflicted with Iraq over. Iraq, for example, didn't want overflights. Then, they offered overflights, as long as they weren't done by the countries that were looking to invade them. Reluctantly, they agreed to allow even that; various military officials later admitted that the information was used in targetting during the invasion.
Here's a mirror of a Washington Post article that covers a lot of other things related to the spying:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ira
The thing is... Iraq *DID* comply. It was our continual disbelief in the face of the evidence that made it take so long. There were many minor things (such as militarily-insignificant handful of empty gas shells found in a warehouse that hadn't been touched for years, etc) - but in a banana republic like the former Iraq, I'm impressed with how few violations they managed to have. Most of the "violations" cited by the US government were nonsense - such as the idiotic claim of an "undeclared gas drone", (which actually was declared, but they put the wingspan in the wrong units. The drone was made out of plyboard and duct tape, had a tiny range, minimal payload, and would be worthless for much of anything apart from getting aerial recon)
In short, Iraq let us in, let us get all the recon we wanted, destroyed their best missiles on what was indisputably a technicality (they only violated the range without a warhead and guidance system) while we waited right outdoors, declared all of their weapons and manufacturing capability.... and then we invaded. It's sickening.
6) You may be interested in knowing that the report about Abu Ghraib declared the abuse to be "systemic". Everyone who has gone through the prison has reported the same sort of abuse. Of course, Abu Ghraib is just the tip of the iceberg. I hope this launches an investigation into Delta, X-ray, and also US-associated prisons like the inhuman Shebargham, where the Convoy of Death ended.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
I wasn't even thinking about opera... more along the lines of Firefly, My So-Called Life, etc. Shows that I thought were high quality, but did not succeed past a single season, and therefore, by your argument, were not very good.
At least with "TV On Demand", we'd be able to see if those who like such shows can generate enough capital to keep them running. Unfortunately, while the viewer base is small, the price would be rather high, but that seems fair.
1) "The coalition is a large coalition. Using your standards, you can pick apart any large alliance into nothing. "
By your definition, America will always have a coalition, because countries dependant on US aid/US trading status/US military sales wll almost always give a nod to the US (which is what most of them gave - little more than a nod; you saw what nations provided in the *real* coalition that attacked Iraq the first time), against the wishes of their own people.
2) "Even assuming that the man-made climate change claims were true"
Oh please. Yeah, organizations like NASA are a bunch of tree hugging hippies.
3) "the Kyoto treaty actually asked for some countries to increase greenhouse emmissions. "
It does not call for anyone to increase greenhouse emissions. In some developing countries, it allows their level of greenhouse emissions to increase as they industrialize, as it places the burden on nations that can - *gasp* - actually afford to implement pollution controls, like the US.
4) "It is entirely correct. It began with the founder of the Muslim faith; a man whose armes slaughtered thousands of Jews, including those who lived in what is now Saudi Arabia. According to his dictates, Saudi Arabia is officially Jew-free"
You've never read a single thing of the Quran that you didn't find on a right-wing website, have you? Here's a starter for you: Familiarize yourself with the term "people of the book".
5) You completely ignored the fact that, during more time than not, in more nations than not, the Jews, despite being a minority, lived quite peacefully with the Arabs, who were a majority - *especially* as time progressed, up to the early 20th century.
6) Yes, I've heard of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Apparently, you're not. They weren't founded until the beginning of the - watch the terms - *al-Aqsa Intifada*. Hence the name. Surely you were aware of that. Try again.
Even given that, it is pretty dumb to think that a nation in which combat is (by necessity) completely decentralized has some sort of organized centralized authority on the subject. Just because al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is aligned with Fatah doesn't mean it follows Fatah's orders, just as the fact that Israel is aligned with the United States means that Israel follows the US's orders.
Again, I ask you to document your case. There are a number of false claims out there, and I would like to disburse you of them.
Lastly, what is your suggestion for the conflict. Another Oslo? What is to stop Israel from *continuing* the settler expansion and the continual land siezure for it? It is something you refuse to address. I expect to see you address it if you choose to reply again. Almost every society in history that has been driven off their land (this is known as "ethnic cleansing") has had major repercussions beyond its immediate region; in one of the most famous cases, the driving of the Germanic tribes westward into Roman territory lead to the eventual downfall of the most powerful empire on the planet.
Turn their cities into a literal minimum security prison (complete with huge walls and sniper towers, completely dependent on external aid), reign down summary judgement from the sky (killing a higher percentage of children than even suicide bombers), and, well, it doesn't take a genius to tell what the result will be.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
> How about in Africa? Are the people of Zimbabwe >better off under Robert Mugabe than they were > >under British administration? Thats like saying are you better of burning to death or being hit by a falling piano. Anyway, Mugabe may well be direct result of UKs failed policy in Africa. Many African coutries succeded in moving towards some sort of stable economic & parlimentary future. Their problems mainly came from; the cold war, where dictators put in power and supported by one or other of the Blocs; ever more repressive control of thier resources by European and American companies; muslim and christian churches who militated against communities working together and improvements in sexual health. Some Africans were complicit in this tragic events, but the people holding the reins were Whitey. The only people who benefited from the British Empire were the British - we still do, much of our income still comes from "investments" overseas. >The areas the Empire "effed up" were Palestine >and the place formerly known as the British >North American Colonies Many indigineous populations throughout the world have been wiped out or disapated by the colonial forces or military, commercial and immigration. Colonial policy was 100% based around religious and commercial desires, not a single thought was given to equalising the African health and education to English standards (which on average were pretty low anyway in colonial times), just to save his soul and steal his possesions. Would you live for one second under the rule of people from thousands of miles away who consider you subhuman? born, live and taxed in the UK, am proud of many of the things we have achieved as a nation (Sinclair C5, Triumph Speed Twin, saving mainland europe from 50 yrs of fascism), but I'm not blind to the long term conseqeunces and the reasons it was done. ttfn Richard
1) What sites did they refuse to open to inspection in 2003? (answer: None)
2) What Kuwaiti goods and persons are you referring to?
3) Yes, it *Does* matter. If Iraq had a stated goal of killing the US president, and Iraq had inspection team members all over the US, you can bet that Bush would do everything in his power to keep them from knowing how the national security apparatus worked to keep himself safe. It's only reasonable. We abused the UN investigation program, and violated international law in the process.
4) Name One Thing That Was Incomplete.
5) Invite them to watch? You still aren't getting the fact that paranoid dictators don't like to offer invitations to people who want to kill them any more than are necessary . Furthermore, while Iraq destroyed its biological warfare facililities, at the time it was still trying to hide the fact that it *had* a biological warfare program so that the sanctions wouldn't become any more strict than they already were (Hussein Kamel's defection changed all that).
6) The No-Fly zones are viewed as illegal by the majority of the permanent members of the UN security council (France, China, and Russia).
7) PEACEKEEPERS? LAF! The US counted Iraqi attempts to defend facilities from US bombing runs as "attacks". The US even did attacks outside of the "no-fly zones". From the start of 1999 to August 1999, Allied pilots launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 targets - about as much as four Desert Fox attacks.
8) Let's do a quick test of your lack of knowledge on the subject here. Pop quiz: How many bodies have been found in mass graves in Iraq?
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
Oh, I just realized that I forgot to cover Kuwait and the Dome of the Rock.
1) Where are you coming up with the idea that the conversation was only about the islands? Iraq's stated disputes with Kuwait included all three. Glaspie discussed with Saddam the *troop deployment* that had been discovered by a KH-11 satellite on July 17th, 1990. You should read the transcript again. The "19th province" was the claim that the US pushed on the American public, but clearly is not the motivation presented in the Glaspie meeting.
2) The Quran was already codified before the construction of the Dome, so it would make no sense for it to be described. However, it is built on what is consididered a sacred location - the place where Mohammed ascended into heaven. Your commentary was akin to stating that since the Church of the Nativity wasn't mentioned in the Bible, it was some insidious Christian plot.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
Richard, you brought up many interesting points, but to quote off-hand remarks the US State Department made to Prime Minister Heath's Government, "g**damn it, would you act like you are British?!" That was in response to Heath telling the State Department to go call the EEC (now known as the EU, of course) for foreign policy inquiries.
I seriously doubt the Romans would've apologized for advancing Western Civilization through ruthless conquest in their time. The whole world benefits today because of that ancient Roman bloodthirst. And I don't shed a tear for what Rome did to Carthage (they were baby sacrificers anyway). The British Empire spread western science, education, medicine, industrialism, capitalism, and various forms of Christianity throughout the world. Because of it, a large amount of people on the planet speak English - even if it isn't their primary language. Britain revived the idea of democracy and also spread that to places it never existed in. That's nothing to scoff about.
"not a single thought was given to equalising the African health and education to English standards"
But what were they before the British arrived? Who paid the money to cure tribal peoples of what we'd now consider pathetic diseases? Is Africa today investing in curing AIDS or Ebola? No. Its Western medicine that is leading the efforts. Without the history that got us all to where we are today, we would have no hope of curing all of humanity from such things in the future.
Its sorta like looking at England's conquest and rule of Ireland. Had England given up Ireland a long time ago, say before the attempted invasion by the Spanish Armada, we wouldn't have modern democracy today. Spain would've set up shop in Ireland and used the place as a second front in an invasion. England would've been conquerred, and presto, no English Bill of Rights (but the Inquisition instead!). You would still to this day have the strong institutional belief in the divine right of kings (aka "absolute monarchy") and no modern example of political liberalism. With no Parlimentary Supremacy in England, you wouldn't have ever had an Enlightenment and thus no Voltaire in France nor the French Revolution (which was caused by the French King's "Charles I" impersonation in terms of setting up a constitutional monarchy), thus no Napoleon marching throughout Europe for better or worse.
"Anyway, Mugabe may well be direct result of UKs failed policy in Africa."
No, Mugabe is the direct result of the failure of the colonials in Rhodesia (sic) who foolishly declared independence from the Empire because they felt Britain would unravel their priviledged status in order to raise the standard of living and political power of the disenfranchised blacks in the country. Its kind of like the modern "Irish Troubles" where British forces moved into Northern Ireland to actually protect the Catholic minority from the Protestants who didn't want to share power, but then the opportunistic IRA then decided to cry "imperialism" and then attack the very forces that were actually trying to prevent their slaughter. And then they got caught into the quagmire that still hasn't been resolved. It also happened in the British North American Colonies after the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that restricted further Western migration. The colonists were in an uproar over the Crown caring more for the Native Americans than them.
"Would you live for one second under the rule of people from thousands of miles away who consider you subhuman?"
Well, I do that today. Its called being a Californian and having our State government told what to do by the chuckleheads in Washington, D.C. at the Federal level. They steal half of each dollar that Californians send to them in the form of federal taxation so we get to pay for all the other states not carrying their fair share. Its what you in the U.K. will be doing soon enough, except you'll be venting at Brussels and Strasbourg equally, but not in the mother English tongue.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
At least with "TV On Demand", we'd be able to see if those who like such shows can generate enough capital to keep them running. Unfortunately, while the viewer base is small, the price would be rather high, but that seems fair.
There are several causes to the demise of those shows that would not be present in TVoD (it's time we had an acronym). Firefly got boned because of retarded scheduling. With TVoD there is no schedule (actually I bet Fox execs would still find a way to screw it up). And Neilsen ratings are a very artificial way of counting viewers. The only rating that matters in TVoD is the amount of money a show is pulling in, and that would be directly measured.
And remember that there is no reason why a network could not subsidize such shows with profits from the more popular shows. There may be a good marketing reason to have "boutique" shows. Take a loss on high quality shows that pick up awards and the buzz will draw viewers in. Unlike the broadcast model where it can be hard to break into an established high quality show (take "24" for an example) with TVoD the viewer always has the option of starting their experience with the very first episode.
Basically I am saying that there is no reason TVoD (pronounced tee-vod) would mean programming for the lowest common denominator.
Serve Gonk.
>what are the problems with it that make people in Britain so reluctant to join?
The EU needs to be large in order to be effective. However, the enlargement drains the larger economies to benefit of the smaller ones. At this moment, the UK economy is the strongest in Europe (Germany is still struggling with the deadweight of reunification).
Previous attempts at economic glue - viz the exchange rate mechanism - placed enormous strain on the UK and showed just how unbalanced things are.
Another problem to manifest is the ludicrous inflation Ireland experienced (which they appear willing to endure as they really *do* benefit from the EU slush funds they're using to build roads).
The very *last* member of the EU to "cry foul" when things are going seriously wrong is the UK - too much of this stiff upper lip nonsense.
The EU *needs* the economic resources of the UK but very few other members (particularly not the French, who're the ultimate driving force behind the EU) will think twice about enacting legislation which hurts the UK if it benefits themselves.
Increasing numbers of people in the UK are simply brassed off because this is *supposed* to be a two-way street.
...why is there so much opposition in Britain to the EU? From an outsider's perspective, it sounds like a great way for Europeans to finally attain the sort of economic and military power that the US has.
Britain is too closly aligned with the US. More so than with Europe. There's a big case of "wag the dog" here. It may look like the US gives the orders when just the opposite is true. The US is doing the dirty work of helping Britain maintain its empire in the middle east(at the present) and asia(oops, that was a French thing). Afganistan? Think opium(big money for the brits a while ago. could still be) If South Africa had being a Soviet "client state" during aparthied, we would never have called Mandela a terrorist.
What?
We probably should call it the Roman Catholic Emipre :-)
Love the sig.
What?
Yes but it's a statutory corporation, which is a very very different kettle of fish from a trading corporation. As the parent poster pointed out, the BBC is not subject to the vissicitudes of the market nor the pressure of advertisers, in deciding upon it s activities.
In fact the reason for the corporate structure of the BBC (and in Australia the ABC) is to isolate the organisation from the direct influence of the executive government. This is always the greatest risk which "government-owned" media must be protected from.
It is silly to oppose "corporate power" while in the same argument saying that the BBC is not an example of it.No, on the contrary, you are the one being silly, (well actually disingenuous), by failing to distinguish what kind of corporation the BBC is, and by failing to understand what kind of power is being referred by the term 'corporate power.' The BBC, though a statutory corporation, is clearly at the opposite end of the spectrum from the 'corporate power' media.
The BBC is indeed 100% a part of the government in the UK. Its directors are government appointees.In practice, however, when the public broadcaster is the most forthright critic of the actual government policies of the day, you know you're doing something right.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke