| Subject: Re: Laudamus te |
Author:
John A.
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:13:50 11/16/03 Sun
In reply to:
Bobben
's message, "Re: Laudamus te" on 13:01:40 11/16/03 Sun
Thanks again, Bobben!
>A PCR(Program Clock Reference) PID is used to
>synchronize audio & video. For TV channels it is
>usually equal to the Video PID. For radio channels it
>is usually equal to the Audio PID. A radiochannel
>does not need PCR to syncronize to video and in some
>receivers you dont need PCR for radio.
That agrees with what I did before, just put in the Audio PID. But if I leave VPID and PCR PID unassigned with these Eutelsat BBC Radio channels, I get nothing.
>
>By using 8191 as VPID you are telling the receiver
>that there is no video ( at least this the Nokia way
>of doing it).
>
OK. Thanks.
>
>>Where the signal comes from, and why, is also a total
>>mystery to me. Even more inconceivable are the BBCs
>>reasons for wanting people not to listen to its radio
>>programmes; it is a public service broadcaster, after
>>all.
>
>Perhaps its not wery clever by BBC to make people
>expect/think that this unofficial service will be
>available forever when the real situation could be
>that its just a temporary DTT feed that could cease
>any day.
>
I understand.
>The big problem is that BBC is NOT a public
>broadcaster outside GB, its only for public inside GB.
But members of the GB public may reside outside the GB, and have paid for the service. BBC may be unintelligible or not have been paid for by certain residents of GB. Why should anyone, anywhere, be restricted in their choice of reception? If it has to be paid for by the receiver, why does his/her address make any difference?
>
>
>As far as I know it is probably the
>parliament/goverment that selects members to the BBC
>board and indirectly decides how BBC were to make BBC
>available. Often the agenda is to cut cost - not
>increase the cost...
>
>This is how national public broadcasters in
>Scandinavia is run and its excactly the same problem
>with those. No fun in Spain.. except for the Danes
>that has got access to their two public channels, DR1
>& DR2 outside Denmark for around £150-£250 pr. year
>dependig on where they live, this probably covers the
>increased cost DR has got from increased program
>rights budget.
>
>Its the same with commercial broadcasters like ITV, C4
>& five which also is only offered to the GB public so
>it does not matter if its commercial or not, perhaps
>its worse as their shareholders probably demands them
>to be wery careful with their cost.
>
>Any broadcaster that makes its channel available
>across Europe will be charged for European coverage by
>rights sellers
Who are these "rights sellers"? What goods or services do they provide in exchange for payment? By whose authority are they able to do this? Where, and from whom, did they obtain these rights?
and artist etc. that get royalties from
>broadcast(that also included radio...).
That is easily handled just as e.g. for Cd recordings.
To make it
>even worse some rigths is exclusive per country basis
>so some movies&sports can not be distributed by more
>than one channel. This makes it possible for the
>rightsellers to make more money.
Sure, but who are these people, and how did they obtain the rights?
Thats why some
>public broadcasters have "international" versions
>stripped of any interessting programs ;-)
That seems to be the case.
>
>This huge problem is not caused by the BBC but the one
>that sells program rights
Yes. How do they acquire them?
And..... WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES?
or by lack of good
>European&international law on this aerea.
The lack of good Intl. and European law would make it difficult for the "rights owners" to assert ownership, I should have thought.
>
>I think its the same problem in the states where you
>cant get the local channels in other states - but I
>might be on thin ice now...
You are. It is not true. There would be an outcry if reception were restricted between US States: it would be unconstitutional. Also, people in Canada can receive anything broadcast in the US and vice versa. Those are countries founded on the principle of freedom of information, amongst many other basic democratic values.
Should we not encourage free access to broadcasting, and thus the promotion of tolerance and understanding? What is the problem with Europeans?
Thanks for your technical help. Greatly appreciated. What I do not understand is how the 1948 UN Declaration of human Rights Article on freedom to pass information across national frontiers can be compromised in this way, as if it did not matter. I thought we had all learned this lesson. Several times in the 20th century.
All best wishes.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 