People are not used to paying for access to a single network. Is this the wave of the future? Paying for a subscription app for every TV channel that you might ever want to watch?
I'm pretty sure I don't want that sort of thing.
depends on the price, but, yes i would love to pay for those that i want and to hell with the 100+ other channels i get 'bundled'
I would be interested to know exactly what would be offered. Would it be an internationalized version or the real thing with all stations i.e. would it be all that the BBC offers in UK?
Also, would it have access to regional local UK news? When in the UK you only can access the regional news of the region you are in but it would be nice to select from them all on this service.
Finally I'd point out the obvious, if all of the BBC content were on demand on such a service they should add the same service to those in the UK too. Why anyone wants an HDR or wait for a specific time to watch a show in this day and age boggles my mind. All TV should be available on demand. This is the 21st Century!
I would be interested to know exactly what would be offered. Would it be an internationalized version or the real thing with all stations i.e. would it be all that the BBC offers in UK?
Also, would it have access to regional local UK news? When in the UK you only can access the regional news of the region you are in but it would be nice to select from them all on this service.
Finally I'd point out the obvious, if all of the BBC content were on demand on such a service they should add the same service to those in the UK too. Why anyone wants an HDR or wait for a specific time to watch a show in this day and age boggles my mind. All TV should be available on demand. This is the 21st Century!
yeah, if it?s only the BBC shows that are released on BBC America and only when they are released in the US, then it becomes a pointless app for me.
IPad > Iplayer > Airplay > Apple TV > Goodbye Cable
Agreed and the current cable companies need to join in or get out of the game or at least out of their last century game model. They have had their technological 15 minutes of fame acting as middle men. As they are now content providers too they can join in but we sure as heck don't need the middle man to distribute networks anymore in linear format. IMHO we need aggregators with alternative models. Some may prefer subscription with no ads many may prefer free with ads. There is room for both but for Pete's sake let's go 'on demand' across the board.
I absolutely can't stand the BBC. Socialist propaganda spewing force fed TV. Hate it. Hate it.
It disgusts me that my country forces me to pay for it's bias reporting even though I don't watch it and am against it's commie terrorist loving anti american principles.
You have to love the BBCs originally, where they come out with original shoes, where many of them have been copied by other stations, ugh hmm The Apprentice.
BBC is a clear example where paid is better.
JFYI
Not all BBC of course but quite illuminating. All in the Family is often the biggest shock to older Americans.
I'm not. I can only listen to the BBC International news feed for short periods of time. There are some stories they do well, but once their mind is made up on an issue, the slant on that issue is largely permanent. Global warming/climate change/climate challenge (whatever the name du jour is) is but one example.
I watched it a number of times on my son's recommendation. But I just don't see the appeal. They often deal with obscure or one-off cars I've never heard of and would never buy if I had. Must be me.
I'm a huge fan of British television but there is no way I'd say that it's quality is higher than US television. They simply don't have the revenue or creative protections that US show have access to. Don't get me wrong, some of my favorite shows are from the UK, but they can't compare in scope to the best shows in the US.
Clearly 'quality' is a matter of taste but what you're saying is similar to "McDonald's have more revenue and many more trademarks and lawyers than Le Bernardin, so McDonald's food must therefore be of a higher quality".
I'm not. I can only listen to the BBC International news feed for short periods of time. There are some stories they do well, but once their mind is made up on an issue, the slant on that issue is largely permanent. Global warming/climate change/climate challenge (whatever the name du jour is) is but one example.
It is a matter of perspective. Personally I think the BBC is one of the few balanced and scientifically well informed news organizations in the World. Your examples indicate you are anti-science and probably, to me at least, far right and religious. It's horses for courses I guess and I respect your right to your views.
I used to watch it. It was pretty good for a British drama, but I stopped around series 4 or 5. Like many of these shows the creator seems to get less interested and the writing seems to unravel a bit,. There become inconsistencies in characters between episodes. Like I said, Spooks was pretty good in this regard, but it can?t compare to the US equivalents which have teams of writers that can work on a show for years at a time. If I watched it again I could point out specific examples, but I don?t have the time or interest to do so. Again, I?m not saying that British shows are bad as i clearly stated I watch plenty, i?m pointing the false claim that US shows offer no quality or standards.
Why do you assume teams of writers do not work on non-American shows? For Kudos, the company which actually produces Spooks, the programme has been arguably their main product with scores of writers over nearly a decade. Here is a story (scroll about half way down) talking about the writing team, which has included several distinguished playwrights and novelists.
And you did not try to point out "the false claim that US shows offer no quality or standards", you specifically stated that British shows could not match American ones for quality in your original post.
Clearly 'quality' is a matter of taste but what you're saying is similar to "McDonald's have more revenue and many more trademarks and lawyers than Le Bernardin, so McDonald's food must therefore be of a higher quality".
Money doesn't equal quality.
I'd agree there. A relatively low budget play with RSC cast done by the BEEB would be of higher 'quality' than many a multi-million dollar budget US TV show IMHO. However, it is all in the eye of the beholder I guess and I confess to enjoying both most times.
I also agree with Soli that there are many fine US shows of high quality.
It is a matter of perspective. Personally I think the BBC is one of the few balanced and scientifically well informed news organizations in the World. Your examples indicate you are anti-science and probably, to me at least, far right and religious. It's horses for courses I guess and I respect your right to your views.
I have an undergrad in math, a Master's in nuclear engineering, and a second Master's in management. I am a very critical thinker, and upon an independent review of the available data, have concluded there are significant anomalies for which current theories do not account. Ignoring these anomalies, as most in the media do, is extremely detrimental to developing an understanding of macro-climate trends. In other words, by so vehemently defending a "consensus" theory, the pursuit of understanding actual climate catalysts and causal trends is retarded ultimately extending the ignorance on the matter. It's understandable - those who depend on funding by proving a particular theory, will likely avoid evidence that refutes the theory. It's odd to me that conclusions from a smoking study funded by tobacco companies are usually ignored, but the same standard has largely not been applied to climate change.
The BBC supports climate change as "settled science," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Thank you for respecting my right to an opinion, but please don't be so presumptuous in your assessment of my thought patterns. There is no "far right" in true science.
Clearly 'quality' is a matter of taste but what you're saying is similar to "McDonald's have more revenue and many more trademarks and lawyers than Le Bernardin, so McDonald's food must therefore be of a higher quality".
Money doesn't equal quality.
So instead of noting the plethora of shows that far exceed the scope of anything produced in the UK or noting companies with deep pockets that do continually focus on making quality products, but instead you make a blanket lump of having money means being cheap like fast-food, which completely ignores the original comment I responded to which stated the US has no quality or standards, which is axiomatically false. Good job¡
People are not used to paying for access to a single network. Is this the wave of the future? Paying for a subscription app for every TV channel that you might ever want to watch?
I'm pretty sure I don't want that sort of thing.
I can count the number of channels I like to watch on one hand. Cable providers bundling popular channels with other channels you don't want but still have to pay for is one of the biggest ripoffs in the industry.
I'd love to be able to subscribe to a few select channels and watch them anywhere (TV, mobile, computer).
I have an undergrad in math, a Master's in nuclear engineering, and a second Master's in management. I am a very critical thinker, and upon an independent review of the available data, have concluded there are significant anomalies for which current theories do not account. Ignoring these anomalies, as most in the media do, is extremely detrimental to developing an understanding of macro-climate trends. In other words, by so vehemently defending a "consensus" theory, the pursuit of understanding actual climate catalysts and causal trends is retarded ultimately extending the ignorance on the matter. It's understandable - those who depend on funding by proving a particular theory, will likely avoid evidence that refutes the theory. It's odd to me that conclusions from a smoking study funded by tobacco companies are usually ignored, but the same standard has largely not been applied to climate change.
The BBC supports climate change as "settled science," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Thank you for respecting my right to an opinion, but please don't be so presumptuous in your assessment of my thought patterns. There is no "far right" in true science.
And still I respect your right your views as I did before you posted your qualifications.
Sorry to be slightly off topic but good science and the BEEB are pretty well a proven partnership in my life hence I leap to their defense David Attenborough was instrumental in my going into the sciences as a boy.
I'm certainly not advocating settled science as I agree science by definition is about hypotheses and moving targets as knowledge is gained. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists not aligned with fossil fuel interests that man is involved in CO2 level increases and the climate related cascading effects from that and he has been since the industrial revolution.
In the early days the studies on smoking funded by the tobacco companies did as I remember help convince generations of smokers that there was no link to cancer. The same scenario of denial seems to be true today. The scientists funded to conclude there is no connection to climate change by fossil fuel based companies sadly seem to have a disproportionate sway with the US general public than independent scientific thought. That view point is reinforced by the right and Fox news as you are no doubt aware. I apologize if I incorrectly lumped you into that category.
So, IMHO opinion that the BEEB (and NPR) for that matter report a far more balanced view usually covering both sides of the actual science. Of course there is no single answer and climatology on a macro scale is a subject of incredible complexity. The fact is though vested interests are as usual twisting facts to suit agendas and ironically managing to paint those without an agenda of having one. It is very clever I have to admit.
It is a matter of perspective. Personally I think the BBC is one of the few balanced and scientifically well informed news organizations in the World. Your examples indicate you are anti-science and probably, to me at least, far right and religious. It's horses for courses I guess and I respect your right to your views.
what brought that bit of rubbish on? 'far right'? "religious"?
Comments
People are not used to paying for access to a single network. Is this the wave of the future? Paying for a subscription app for every TV channel that you might ever want to watch?
I'm pretty sure I don't want that sort of thing.
depends on the price, but, yes i would love to pay for those that i want and to hell with the 100+ other channels i get 'bundled'
Also, would it have access to regional local UK news? When in the UK you only can access the regional news of the region you are in but it would be nice to select from them all on this service.
Finally I'd point out the obvious, if all of the BBC content were on demand on such a service they should add the same service to those in the UK too. Why anyone wants an HDR or wait for a specific time to watch a show in this day and age boggles my mind. All TV should be available on demand. This is the 21st Century!
I would be interested to know exactly what would be offered. Would it be an internationalized version or the real thing with all stations i.e. would it be all that the BBC offers in UK?
Also, would it have access to regional local UK news? When in the UK you only can access the regional news of the region you are in but it would be nice to select from them all on this service.
Finally I'd point out the obvious, if all of the BBC content were on demand on such a service they should add the same service to those in the UK too. Why anyone wants an HDR or wait for a specific time to watch a show in this day and age boggles my mind. All TV should be available on demand. This is the 21st Century!
yeah, if it?s only the BBC shows that are released on BBC America and only when they are released in the US, then it becomes a pointless app for me.
IPad > Iplayer > Airplay > Apple TV > Goodbye Cable
Agreed and the current cable companies need to join in or get out of the game or at least out of their last century game model. They have had their technological 15 minutes of fame acting as middle men. As they are now content providers too they can join in but we sure as heck don't need the middle man to distribute networks anymore in linear format. IMHO we need aggregators with alternative models. Some may prefer subscription with no ads many may prefer free with ads. There is room for both but for Pete's sake let's go 'on demand' across the board.
I absolutely can't stand the BBC. Socialist propaganda spewing force fed TV. Hate it. Hate it.
It disgusts me that my country forces me to pay for it's bias reporting even though I don't watch it and am against it's commie terrorist loving anti american principles.
Yeah, Dr. Who is really a commie
I'm assuming this post is a joke
You have to love the BBCs originally, where they come out with original shoes, where many of them have been copied by other stations, ugh hmm The Apprentice.
BBC is a clear example where paid is better.
JFYI
Not all BBC of course but quite illuminating. All in the Family is often the biggest shock to older Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...evision_series
The BBC are the best thing about British TV. Fact.
Channel 4 aren't bad either. Best Documentaries, Father Ted, best food shows, etc.
Yeah, Dr. Who is really a commie
I'm assuming this post is a joke
I'm not. I can only listen to the BBC International news feed for short periods of time. There are some stories they do well, but once their mind is made up on an issue, the slant on that issue is largely permanent. Global warming/climate change/climate challenge (whatever the name du jour is) is but one example.
But my fav is Top Gear by a long shot.
I watched it a number of times on my son's recommendation. But I just don't see the appeal. They often deal with obscure or one-off cars I've never heard of and would never buy if I had. Must be me.
For the crashy stuff I prefer Myth Busters.
I'm a huge fan of British television but there is no way I'd say that it's quality is higher than US television. They simply don't have the revenue or creative protections that US show have access to. Don't get me wrong, some of my favorite shows are from the UK, but they can't compare in scope to the best shows in the US.
Clearly 'quality' is a matter of taste but what you're saying is similar to "McDonald's have more revenue and many more trademarks and lawyers than Le Bernardin, so McDonald's food must therefore be of a higher quality".
Money doesn't equal quality.
I'm not. I can only listen to the BBC International news feed for short periods of time. There are some stories they do well, but once their mind is made up on an issue, the slant on that issue is largely permanent. Global warming/climate change/climate challenge (whatever the name du jour is) is but one example.
It is a matter of perspective. Personally I think the BBC is one of the few balanced and scientifically well informed news organizations in the World. Your examples indicate you are anti-science and probably, to me at least, far right and religious. It's horses for courses I guess and I respect your right to your views.
I used to watch it. It was pretty good for a British drama, but I stopped around series 4 or 5. Like many of these shows the creator seems to get less interested and the writing seems to unravel a bit,. There become inconsistencies in characters between episodes. Like I said, Spooks was pretty good in this regard, but it can?t compare to the US equivalents which have teams of writers that can work on a show for years at a time. If I watched it again I could point out specific examples, but I don?t have the time or interest to do so. Again, I?m not saying that British shows are bad as i clearly stated I watch plenty, i?m pointing the false claim that US shows offer no quality or standards.
Why do you assume teams of writers do not work on non-American shows? For Kudos, the company which actually produces Spooks, the programme has been arguably their main product with scores of writers over nearly a decade. Here is a story (scroll about half way down) talking about the writing team, which has included several distinguished playwrights and novelists.
And you did not try to point out "the false claim that US shows offer no quality or standards", you specifically stated that British shows could not match American ones for quality in your original post.
Clearly 'quality' is a matter of taste but what you're saying is similar to "McDonald's have more revenue and many more trademarks and lawyers than Le Bernardin, so McDonald's food must therefore be of a higher quality".
Money doesn't equal quality.
I'd agree there. A relatively low budget play with RSC cast done by the BEEB would be of higher 'quality' than many a multi-million dollar budget US TV show IMHO. However, it is all in the eye of the beholder I guess and I confess to enjoying both most times.
I also agree with Soli that there are many fine US shows of high quality.
It is a matter of perspective. Personally I think the BBC is one of the few balanced and scientifically well informed news organizations in the World. Your examples indicate you are anti-science and probably, to me at least, far right and religious. It's horses for courses I guess and I respect your right to your views.
I have an undergrad in math, a Master's in nuclear engineering, and a second Master's in management. I am a very critical thinker, and upon an independent review of the available data, have concluded there are significant anomalies for which current theories do not account. Ignoring these anomalies, as most in the media do, is extremely detrimental to developing an understanding of macro-climate trends. In other words, by so vehemently defending a "consensus" theory, the pursuit of understanding actual climate catalysts and causal trends is retarded ultimately extending the ignorance on the matter. It's understandable - those who depend on funding by proving a particular theory, will likely avoid evidence that refutes the theory. It's odd to me that conclusions from a smoking study funded by tobacco companies are usually ignored, but the same standard has largely not been applied to climate change.
The BBC supports climate change as "settled science," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Thank you for respecting my right to an opinion, but please don't be so presumptuous in your assessment of my thought patterns. There is no "far right" in true science.
Clearly 'quality' is a matter of taste but what you're saying is similar to "McDonald's have more revenue and many more trademarks and lawyers than Le Bernardin, so McDonald's food must therefore be of a higher quality".
Money doesn't equal quality.
So instead of noting the plethora of shows that far exceed the scope of anything produced in the UK or noting companies with deep pockets that do continually focus on making quality products, but instead you make a blanket lump of having money means being cheap like fast-food, which completely ignores the original comment I responded to which stated the US has no quality or standards, which is axiomatically false. Good job¡
People are not used to paying for access to a single network. Is this the wave of the future? Paying for a subscription app for every TV channel that you might ever want to watch?
I'm pretty sure I don't want that sort of thing.
I can count the number of channels I like to watch on one hand. Cable providers bundling popular channels with other channels you don't want but still have to pay for is one of the biggest ripoffs in the industry.
I'd love to be able to subscribe to a few select channels and watch them anywhere (TV, mobile, computer).
I have an undergrad in math, a Master's in nuclear engineering, and a second Master's in management. I am a very critical thinker, and upon an independent review of the available data, have concluded there are significant anomalies for which current theories do not account. Ignoring these anomalies, as most in the media do, is extremely detrimental to developing an understanding of macro-climate trends. In other words, by so vehemently defending a "consensus" theory, the pursuit of understanding actual climate catalysts and causal trends is retarded ultimately extending the ignorance on the matter. It's understandable - those who depend on funding by proving a particular theory, will likely avoid evidence that refutes the theory. It's odd to me that conclusions from a smoking study funded by tobacco companies are usually ignored, but the same standard has largely not been applied to climate change.
The BBC supports climate change as "settled science," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Thank you for respecting my right to an opinion, but please don't be so presumptuous in your assessment of my thought patterns. There is no "far right" in true science.
And still I respect your right your views as I did before you posted your qualifications.
Sorry to be slightly off topic but good science and the BEEB are pretty well a proven partnership in my life hence I leap to their defense
I'm certainly not advocating settled science as I agree science by definition is about hypotheses and moving targets as knowledge is gained. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists not aligned with fossil fuel interests that man is involved in CO2 level increases and the climate related cascading effects from that and he has been since the industrial revolution.
In the early days the studies on smoking funded by the tobacco companies did as I remember help convince generations of smokers that there was no link to cancer. The same scenario of denial seems to be true today. The scientists funded to conclude there is no connection to climate change by fossil fuel based companies sadly seem to have a disproportionate sway with the US general public than independent scientific thought. That view point is reinforced by the right and Fox news as you are no doubt aware. I apologize if I incorrectly lumped you into that category.
So, IMHO opinion that the BEEB (and NPR) for that matter report a far more balanced view usually covering both sides of the actual science. Of course there is no single answer and climatology on a macro scale is a subject of incredible complexity. The fact is though vested interests are as usual twisting facts to suit agendas and ironically managing to paint those without an agenda of having one. It is very clever I have to admit.
It is a matter of perspective. Personally I think the BBC is one of the few balanced and scientifically well informed news organizations in the World. Your examples indicate you are anti-science and probably, to me at least, far right and religious. It's horses for courses I guess and I respect your right to your views.
what brought that bit of rubbish on? 'far right'? "religious"?