5 ms·

Just want to point out phrase about "Netflix eating TV". I would like to give an example that TV didn't destroy or replaced radio, they are different technologi

Just want to point out phrase about "Netflix eating TV". I would like to give an example that TV didn't destroy or replaced radio, they are different technologies and still co-exist.

lostmsu 8y ago
Mostly that's because you can't watch when driving.
- Angostura 8y ago
  I'm in the UK and blessed with BBC radio. * You can listen while driving * while cooking * while gardening * while flicking through the newspaper * while falling asleep. Wouldn't be without my audio friend.
  - mcny 8y ago
    I wish I had more experience with the BBC. On the surface, it seems like a very interesting experiment. From outside, I imagine BBC would be different from other broadcast television stations in that it doesn't have do ads (BBC outside the UK is different, I believe). How much of a difference does it make? I'd love to hear some insight from people in the UK.
    - mrec 8y ago
      I'm a Brit, vehemently anti-ad, but am not a fan of the BBC, and don't support it (financially or otherwise). It may have made some sense back when it was the only broadcaster, but now that it's one of many, and there are proven alternatives for ad-free (e.g. the HBO subscription model), I can't see any justification for continuing to force people to pay for a channel they don't like and don't use.
      - SuperGent 8y ago
        Whereas I agree with the sentiment, I find that nearly all subscription TV (Sky, etc) has 15 minutes of adverts an hour. These include the premium channels, such as Sky films and Sports. I don't see why anyone would pay £60 a month for these channels to play 8 hours of adverts each a day, and then complain about the TV licence cost of £150 a year.
        mrec 8y ago
        The only subscription service I use is Netflix, which doesn't have ads and is cheaper than the TV license. I wouldn't pay for anything that did have ads, and I don't see why "some people spend a lot on ad-infested channels" in inconsistent with "some people complain about being forced to pay for something they don't use".
      - Angostura 8y ago
        > I can't see any justification for continuing to force people to pay for a channel they don't like and don't use. When you say "channel" you're talking about 7 Tv Channels and numerous radio stations
        mrec 8y ago
        So? I don't use any of them.
    - KineticLensman 8y ago
      I listen to a mix of BBC programming and commercial radio while driving to work. The ad-free BBC allows for some real immersion in the programme content, which is great for plays and documentary. E.g. something like “In our time” which devotes 45 totally uninterrupted mins to a single subject. When I get bored with the serious stuff I switch to commercial music radio and use the ad-breaks to cycle to the next station that is playing music. So, lack of ads allows real depth in the content.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      I stopped listening to commercial radio maybe 20 years ago. The commercial aspects ruin the experience - too many ads, too many loud strident and annoying ads, too small and repetitive a playlist. Very little news, talk, science, comedy etc. Classic FM was OK for a while, but these days I almost constantly listen to BBC radio in the car or at home because unlike TV I can do other things at the same time. When I'm listening to R4 at home (talk radio with news, science, current affairs and comedy) it's often interesting or funny enough to deserve full attention. I still prefer radio as a day's background noise over constant streaming thanks to the variety in programming through the day, and the periodic talk, and news. I turn off or switch for some of course. :) TV I mostly gave up on, except some BBC, and films and a few series via Netflix etc. I hate UK commercial TV - way too many ads now, enough to ruin the programming and stop me wanting to watch. Without BBC radio it would ruin my day. Most days. I'm not sure what I'd do without it. Listen to a lot more audio books maybe, as I don't want 100% music. If you want to experience the BBC a lot of radio is available for ad free download, podcast, or streaming on site, and there's always the World Service. Not sure how TV access is from abroad. World Service is interesting because it gives a distinct perspective that's different to domestic UK broadcasts. I used to listen a lot when I was often up late.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      I think its worth noting that BBC Radio 4 is deemed sufficiently important that checking for its broadcast is one of the tests that the UK nuclear deterrent submarines use to determine if civilisation as we know it has ended. Yes, I do complain about the BBC occasionally (e.g. I was genuinely shocked as to how partisan they were during the Scottish Independence Referendum) but overall I love their service and am quite happy to pay my license fee.
    - mikestew 8y ago
      I'd like to point out that parent is talking about BBC radio, but you're asking about TV. I point this out because I was about to reply that if you're in the U. S., you can get much the same experience with a collection of local public radio stations. At least in the Seattle area, there's the classical station, there's the "mostly jazz" station, a couple of NPR affiliates. Mostly ad-free, if one doesn't count the bumper sponsorships. But you were asking about TV, so that doesn't apply. Though between Netflix and HBO Go, we get all the TV we can watch without ads. It's jarring to turn on a TV in a hotel room these days. "I'm continually amazed that people pay for this."
vanderZwan 8y ago
A better comparison would have been TV and film. A lot of "ecological niches" in the media landscape that are currently being taken over from TV by internet streaming used to be taken up film. Can you imagine going to the cinema for a news broadcast?
- mistersquid 8y ago
  > Can you imagine going to the cinema for a news broadcast? In the first decades of the Twentieth Century, cinema did in fact deliver news. > Regular newsreels were exhibited from 1910 and soon became a popular way for finding out the news. [0] Newsprint and newsreels existed side-by-side and while newspapers did go into greater depth, newsreels at the cinema were widespread. I don't have exact dates at hand, but newsreels at the cinema stopped with the advent of broadcast television, an example of one media largely displacing another. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    > In the first decades of the Twentieth Century, cinema did in fact deliver news. That was my point...

Just want to point out phrase about "Netflix eating TV". I would like to give an example that TV didn't destroy or replaced radio, they are different technologies and still co-exist.

lostmsu 8y ago

Mostly that's because you can't watch when driving.

Angostura 8y ago
I'm in the UK and blessed with BBC radio. * You can listen while driving * while cooking * while gardening * while flicking through the newspaper * while falling asleep. Wouldn't be without my audio friend.
- mcny 8y ago
  I wish I had more experience with the BBC. On the surface, it seems like a very interesting experiment. From outside, I imagine BBC would be different from other broadcast television stations in that it doesn't have do ads (BBC outside the UK is different, I believe). How much of a difference does it make? I'd love to hear some insight from people in the UK.
  - mrec 8y ago
    I'm a Brit, vehemently anti-ad, but am not a fan of the BBC, and don't support it (financially or otherwise). It may have made some sense back when it was the only broadcaster, but now that it's one of many, and there are proven alternatives for ad-free (e.g. the HBO subscription model), I can't see any justification for continuing to force people to pay for a channel they don't like and don't use.
    - SuperGent 8y ago
      Whereas I agree with the sentiment, I find that nearly all subscription TV (Sky, etc) has 15 minutes of adverts an hour. These include the premium channels, such as Sky films and Sports. I don't see why anyone would pay £60 a month for these channels to play 8 hours of adverts each a day, and then complain about the TV licence cost of £150 a year.
      - mrec 8y ago
        The only subscription service I use is Netflix, which doesn't have ads and is cheaper than the TV license. I wouldn't pay for anything that did have ads, and I don't see why "some people spend a lot on ad-infested channels" in inconsistent with "some people complain about being forced to pay for something they don't use".
    - Angostura 8y ago
      > I can't see any justification for continuing to force people to pay for a channel they don't like and don't use. When you say "channel" you're talking about 7 Tv Channels and numerous radio stations
      - mrec 8y ago
        So? I don't use any of them.
  - KineticLensman 8y ago
    I listen to a mix of BBC programming and commercial radio while driving to work. The ad-free BBC allows for some real immersion in the programme content, which is great for plays and documentary. E.g. something like “In our time” which devotes 45 totally uninterrupted mins to a single subject. When I get bored with the serious stuff I switch to commercial music radio and use the ad-breaks to cycle to the next station that is playing music. So, lack of ads allows real depth in the content.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    I stopped listening to commercial radio maybe 20 years ago. The commercial aspects ruin the experience - too many ads, too many loud strident and annoying ads, too small and repetitive a playlist. Very little news, talk, science, comedy etc. Classic FM was OK for a while, but these days I almost constantly listen to BBC radio in the car or at home because unlike TV I can do other things at the same time. When I'm listening to R4 at home (talk radio with news, science, current affairs and comedy) it's often interesting or funny enough to deserve full attention. I still prefer radio as a day's background noise over constant streaming thanks to the variety in programming through the day, and the periodic talk, and news. I turn off or switch for some of course. :) TV I mostly gave up on, except some BBC, and films and a few series via Netflix etc. I hate UK commercial TV - way too many ads now, enough to ruin the programming and stop me wanting to watch. Without BBC radio it would ruin my day. Most days. I'm not sure what I'd do without it. Listen to a lot more audio books maybe, as I don't want 100% music. If you want to experience the BBC a lot of radio is available for ad free download, podcast, or streaming on site, and there's always the World Service. Not sure how TV access is from abroad. World Service is interesting because it gives a distinct perspective that's different to domestic UK broadcasts. I used to listen a lot when I was often up late.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    I think its worth noting that BBC Radio 4 is deemed sufficiently important that checking for its broadcast is one of the tests that the UK nuclear deterrent submarines use to determine if civilisation as we know it has ended. Yes, I do complain about the BBC occasionally (e.g. I was genuinely shocked as to how partisan they were during the Scottish Independence Referendum) but overall I love their service and am quite happy to pay my license fee.
  - mikestew 8y ago
    I'd like to point out that parent is talking about BBC radio, but you're asking about TV. I point this out because I was about to reply that if you're in the U. S., you can get much the same experience with a collection of local public radio stations. At least in the Seattle area, there's the classical station, there's the "mostly jazz" station, a couple of NPR affiliates. Mostly ad-free, if one doesn't count the bumper sponsorships. But you were asking about TV, so that doesn't apply. Though between Netflix and HBO Go, we get all the TV we can watch without ads. It's jarring to turn on a TV in a hotel room these days. "I'm continually amazed that people pay for this."

vanderZwan 8y ago

A better comparison would have been TV and film. A lot of "ecological niches" in the media landscape that are currently being taken over from TV by internet streaming used to be taken up film. Can you imagine going to the cinema for a news broadcast?

mistersquid 8y ago
> Can you imagine going to the cinema for a news broadcast? In the first decades of the Twentieth Century, cinema did in fact deliver news. > Regular newsreels were exhibited from 1910 and soon became a popular way for finding out the news. [0] Newsprint and newsreels existed side-by-side and while newspapers did go into greater depth, newsreels at the cinema were widespread. I don't have exact dates at hand, but newsreels at the cinema stopped with the advent of broadcast television, an example of one media largely displacing another. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  > In the first decades of the Twentieth Century, cinema did in fact deliver news. That was my point...