3 ms·

We do spend out quite a lot here in the UK for the BBC. They could easily dump a couple of expensive presenters and use the savings for vacuum tubes, if that i

by gerdesj 4mo ago

We do spend out quite a lot here in the UK for the BBC. They could easily dump a couple of expensive presenters and use the savings for vacuum tubes, if that is what is needed. No idea where vacuum tubes were invented but I'm sure the BBC could find someone to make them.

andyjohnson0 4mo ago
> No idea where vacuum tubes were invented but I'm sure the BBC could find someone to make them. The BBC has just cut its budget by £500 million, in an apparent attempt to limit the damage from the latest charter renewal process - which determines its funding. The new director general (ie ceo) is an ex-Google person, and they seem to be pivoting to become a social media content provider. So I'm pretty sure that spending licence fee money on making vacuum tubes to broadcast a signal that nobody under forty listens to wouldnt get past a value for money test. (I like the BBC and its radio output, and I'm one of those weirdos who still pays the licence fee despite never watching tv or any of the stuff that the licence fee is required for. But it is becoming increasingly lost to me: focussed on triviality and politically cowed. Sadly, I no longer expect it to last.)
- microgpt 4mo ago
  I thought the license fee was a tax. You have to pay it, except in extremely specific scenarios that are basically just the bureaucracy's way of saying it's technically optional even though it isn't. AFAIK you have to own no devices capable of receiving BBC broadcasts - this includes most phones and computers since they broadcast on the internet.
  - Symbiote 4mo ago
    You only need the license if you watch live TV (on any service) or use BBC iPlayer. If you only watch DVDs, or stream movies etc, you don't need a license
    - microgpt 4mo ago
      When did they change it from if you could watch to if you actually watch?
      - Symbiote 4mo ago
        In about 2008 it was OK, my flatmate let the "TV licencing" people in to see a TV connected only to games consoles and a DVD player.
      - rgblambda 4mo ago
        Technically the rule never changed. If a licence inspector sees a TV connected to an ariel socket then you're breaking the law. But there's virtually no inspections any more. There were a lot of bad newspaper headlines about poor single mothers going to prison for getting caught (and refusing to pay the fine, but that bit usually got left out), so enforcement basically ended.
TylerE 4mo ago
I'm sure they could, but sourcing people willing to manufacture heavily equipment/processing intensive speciality products for tiny runs will be MINDBLOWINGLY expensive. This isn't about the little tubes that go in a guitar amp... we're talking about tubes that may well be too large for a single person to lift. What's more, everyone who knew how to build things is either dead or in a retirement home. You'd have to re-engineer much of it from scratch.
- microgpt 4mo ago
  At least you already have some working tubes to start from. Some guy did it with Nixie tubes, of course those are a lot smaller.
  - TylerE 4mo ago
    Exactly - and look what those cost despite being produced in relative quantity. Now scale up to something that's 1000 times the size with 1/1000th the production volume. Wouldn't surprise me if the per-tube cost was in the millions. Nixies are also cold cathode, low current devices. Radio broadcast tubes can be handling tens or even hundreds of thousands of watts.
microgpt 4mo ago
These aren't just any vacuum tubes. They are each the size of a small fridge, and extremely specialized for use in radio broadcasting.
ErroneousBosh 4mo ago
> They could easily dump a couple of expensive presenters and use the savings for vacuum tubes, if that is what is needed. I bet they're kicking themselves over not just renewing Jeremy Clarkson's contract.

by gerdesj 4mo ago

andyjohnson0 4mo ago

> No idea where vacuum tubes were invented but I'm sure the BBC could find someone to make them. The BBC has just cut its budget by £500 million, in an apparent attempt to limit the damage from the latest charter renewal process - which determines its funding. The new director general (ie ceo) is an ex-Google person, and they seem to be pivoting to become a social media content provider. So I'm pretty sure that spending licence fee money on making vacuum tubes to broadcast a signal that nobody under forty listens to wouldnt get past a value for money test. (I like the BBC and its radio output, and I'm one of those weirdos who still pays the licence fee despite never watching tv or any of the stuff that the licence fee is required for. But it is becoming increasingly lost to me: focussed on triviality and politically cowed. Sadly, I no longer expect it to last.)

microgpt 4mo ago
I thought the license fee was a tax. You have to pay it, except in extremely specific scenarios that are basically just the bureaucracy's way of saying it's technically optional even though it isn't. AFAIK you have to own no devices capable of receiving BBC broadcasts - this includes most phones and computers since they broadcast on the internet.
- Symbiote 4mo ago
  You only need the license if you watch live TV (on any service) or use BBC iPlayer. If you only watch DVDs, or stream movies etc, you don't need a license
  - microgpt 4mo ago
    When did they change it from if you could watch to if you actually watch?
    - Symbiote 4mo ago
      In about 2008 it was OK, my flatmate let the "TV licencing" people in to see a TV connected only to games consoles and a DVD player.
    - rgblambda 4mo ago
      Technically the rule never changed. If a licence inspector sees a TV connected to an ariel socket then you're breaking the law. But there's virtually no inspections any more. There were a lot of bad newspaper headlines about poor single mothers going to prison for getting caught (and refusing to pay the fine, but that bit usually got left out), so enforcement basically ended.

TylerE 4mo ago

I'm sure they could, but sourcing people willing to manufacture heavily equipment/processing intensive speciality products for tiny runs will be MINDBLOWINGLY expensive. This isn't about the little tubes that go in a guitar amp... we're talking about tubes that may well be too large for a single person to lift. What's more, everyone who knew how to build things is either dead or in a retirement home. You'd have to re-engineer much of it from scratch.

microgpt 4mo ago
At least you already have some working tubes to start from. Some guy did it with Nixie tubes, of course those are a lot smaller.
- TylerE 4mo ago
  Exactly - and look what those cost despite being produced in relative quantity. Now scale up to something that's 1000 times the size with 1/1000th the production volume. Wouldn't surprise me if the per-tube cost was in the millions. Nixies are also cold cathode, low current devices. Radio broadcast tubes can be handling tens or even hundreds of thousands of watts.

microgpt 4mo ago

These aren't just any vacuum tubes. They are each the size of a small fridge, and extremely specialized for use in radio broadcasting.

ErroneousBosh 4mo ago

> They could easily dump a couple of expensive presenters and use the savings for vacuum tubes, if that is what is needed. I bet they're kicking themselves over not just renewing Jeremy Clarkson's contract.