Just a message to anyone in the trade or with an interest, who has
missed the Television Magazine since it ceased publication earlier in
the year:

Television (& Consumer Electronics) Magazine is now back from a new
publisher.

"info@televisionmagazine.co.uk"
01903 774481

Many of the old contributors are back and the format is better than
the old one had become.
Donald Bullock, A day in the life, Roger Bunney, Test Case, all
there.

Long may this continue, but it will need our support both as buyers
and contributors.
I think fault reports are relevent. I think anything we can do to
help
each other and compare notes is good. Independent businesses can help
each other to stay afloat by sharing ideas of good practice and
quality workmanship.
Also by comparing notes we can have a laugh and stop ourselves going
completely mad as we realise that we are not the only ones with
completely impossible customers who want miracles for peanuts.


Enthusiasts exist and like to compare notes and so long as the editor
keeps to his stated and intended format, I am sure he will make a
success of it.

<uk.media.tv.sky>
<widgitt>
<Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:50:14 -0800 (PST)>


> it will need our support both as buyers
> and contributors.
> I think fault reports are relevent. I think anything we can do to
> help
> each other and compare notes is good. Independent businesses can help
> each other to stay afloat by sharing ideas of good practice and
> quality workmanship.
> Also by comparing notes we can have a laugh and stop ourselves going
> completely mad as we realise that we are not the only ones with
> completely impossible customers who want miracles for peanuts.
> 

Unless its going to campaign to get rid of all the modern day techno 
crap like the (what on next banner) popup a couple of minutes before a 
tv show or film ends - then its as useful as condom in a sperm clinic .

Translated , That means television magazine isnt worth a fuck unless its 
going to make a difference to what the viewer sees on tv .

Best case senario ..... lets say it does campaign .

Are any tv networks going to pay the slight bit of attention to it given 
the tv networks dont actually pay the slightest bit of attention to what 
viewers say when they email them with a complaint .

For all the tv networks do in reply is fob of the viewer with some sort 
of bullshit reply saying summit like we value you comments and they have 
been passed onto the teaboy for consideration .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

Krustov wrote:

> Unless its going to campaign to get rid of all the modern day techno 
> crap like the (what on next banner) popup a couple of minutes before a 
> tv show or film ends - then its as useful as condom in a sperm clinic .

It's not that sort of magazine, like its predecessor, that was as old as TV 
itself, it deals with servicing, reception, and technical issues, not the 
programming or presentation of broadcasts.

Mind you, to be fair <widgitt> shouldn't really have posted in here, as this 
is not a technical newsgroup.


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Sorry about posting here, didn't really think about that
 but I know many people here have a technical interest as well and
have missed the mag since it disappeared. It does cover some media and
broadcast news and issues as well, though.

Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Krustov wrote:
> 
> > Unless its going to campaign to get rid of all the modern day techno
> > crap like the (what on next banner) popup a couple of minutes before a
> > tv show or film ends - then its as useful as condom in a sperm clinic .
> 
> It's not that sort of magazine, like its predecessor, that was as old as TV
> itself, it deals with servicing, reception, and technical issues, not the
> programming or presentation of broadcasts.

It certainly used to concern itself with the broadcasting end of the
link at one time, with articles about the techniques of programme making
and distribution and a regular column critical of the content and
quality (both technical and artistic) of recent television programmes.

For me, the removal of that sort of content in favour of mending
toasters reduced its appeal.

As for campaigning, I remember vigorous editorials in the 1970s
condemning the BBC for closing down transmitters during daytime test
transmission hours and depriving installers of a signal at the very time
they needed one.

They got exactly as far as you would expect them to have done. 

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

Alan Pemberton wrote:

> As for campaigning, I remember vigorous editorials in the 1970s
> condemning the BBC for closing down transmitters during daytime test
> transmission hours and depriving installers of a signal at the very time
> they needed one.
> 
> They got exactly as far as you would expect them to have done. 

Funnily enough daytime test card transmissions on BBC 2 commenced again on Aug 
2nd 1982. The very same day that C4 started official test transmissions, three 
months ahead of their launch.

The BBC's reasoning for this extra expense (as they saw it) was to ensure 
aerial riggers could adjust customer aerials to ensure that all four channels 
were received equally well. Beebspeak for; "make sure the riggers don't bugger 
up BBC2 reception at the expense of C4".



-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Alan Pemberton wrote:
> 
> > As for campaigning, I remember vigorous editorials in the 1970s
> > condemning the BBC for closing down transmitters during daytime test
> > transmission hours and depriving installers of a signal at the very time
> > they needed one.
> > 
> > They got exactly as far as you would expect them to have done. 
> 
> Funnily enough daytime test card transmissions on BBC 2 commenced again on Aug
> 2nd 1982. The very same day that C4 started official test transmissions, three
> months ahead of their launch.
> 
> The BBC's reasoning for this extra expense (as they saw it) was to ensure
> aerial riggers could adjust customer aerials to ensure that all four channels
> were received equally well. Beebspeak for; "make sure the riggers don't bugger
> up BBC2 reception at the expense of C4".

Their bleating ten years previously was all about the expense of
providing multi megawatt test generators for setting up tellies. They
conveniently forgot all about aerials then.

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>