Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
further ahead than that).
Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has finished?
Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me:
my interests are not mainstream!)
I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
On 2026/6/17 22:42:2, NY wrote:
Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
further ahead than that).
Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has
finished?
Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me:
my interests are not mainstream!)
I think "not liking football" is now big enough to be called mainstream,
but TPTB are still stuck in the 1950s.
I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
Would be nice - but of course the red button channels aren't there to be
used any time: when they _are_ in use, the bits need to be stolen from something else.
I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh dear, how sad, never mind
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/6/17 22:42:2, NY wrote:
Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
further ahead than that).
Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has
finished?
Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me: >> my interests are not mainstream!)
I think "not liking football" is now big enough to be called mainstream, but TPTB are still stuck in the 1950s.
I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
Would be nice - but of course the red button channels aren't there to be used any time: when they _are_ in use, the bits need to be stolen from something else.
Go for a walk, read a book. Catch up on something on iPlayer. Football doesnrCOt interest me either, but thererCOs loads of other things to do whilst
itrCOs on.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/6/17 22:42:2, NY wrote:
Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
further ahead than that).
Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then >> >> break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has >> >> finished?
Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated >> >> as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me: >> >> my interests are not mainstream!)
I think "not liking football" is now big enough to be called mainstream, >> > but TPTB are still stuck in the 1950s.
I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh >> >> dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
Would be nice - but of course the red button channels aren't there to be >> > used any time: when they _are_ in use, the bits need to be stolen from
something else.
Go for a walk, read a book. Catch up on something on iPlayer. Football
doesnrCOt interest me either, but thererCOs loads of other things to do whilst
itrCOs on.
Get rid of the television altogether. I did that in 1985 and I haven't >regretted it.
Someone wrote in the (Glasgow) Herald that they had binned their TV. I
wrote a letter pointing out this was a breach of the WEEE Regulations
and my letter was printed. Quiet news day
On 18/06/2026 18:54, Scott wrote:
Someone wrote in the (Glasgow) Herald that they had binned their TV. I
wrote a letter pointing out this was a breach of the WEEE Regulations
and my letter was printed. Quiet news day
Far more have 'binned' the Glasgow Herald ages ago.
Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
further ahead than that).
Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has finished?
Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me:
my interests are not mainstream!)
I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 22:42:02 +0100, NY wrote:
Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
further ahead than that).
Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has
finished?
Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me:
my interests are not mainstream!)
I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
Then there will be 'Bat and Ball'
On 25/06/2026 02:24, jon wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 22:42:02 +0100, NY wrote:
Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
further ahead than that).
Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has
finished?
Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me: >>> my interests are not mainstream!)
I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
Then there will be 'Bat and Ball'
And I'm sure somewhere in the country/world there will be athletics and
other sport which "has" to take precedence over regular schedule programmes.
I've just seen on Digiguide that Who Do You Think You Are episode 4
(Ruth Madeley) is being shown on Thursday 9 July (not Tuesday 7 July) on
BBC Two.
On 25/06/2026 02:24, jon wrote:[]
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 22:42:02 +0100, NY wrote:
Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
Then there will be 'Bat and Ball'
And I'm sure somewhere in the country/world there will be athletics and other sport which "has" to take precedence over regular schedule programmes.[]I don't follow much sport, but when I do, I'm happy to go to another
But the entire concept of regular scheduled programming is probably >considered hideously old-fashioned by the latest generation (or two),
and they're now getting into The Powers That Be positions.
The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.
On 26/06/2026 08:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:
The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.
I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time
because I know what I am going to find there. I can't be bothered with
most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.
I don't mind repeated programmes because much of the time, the best
viewing is old TV series but there are many series that I did not watch first time around and still don't watch now.
On 2026/6/26 12:11:50, JMB99 wrote:
On 26/06/2026 08:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:The "developments in technology" mean I have to go hunting around, since
The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.
I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time
because I know what I am going to find there. I can't be bothered with
most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.
I don't mind repeated programmes because much of the time, the best
viewing is old TV series but there are many series that I did not watch
first time around and still don't watch now.
TPTB have _used_ those developments to stop me doing what I was before - >finding certain prog.s on certain channels at certain times, without
having to faff about. Sure, I'm a fan of technology - where it gives me >something new/additional. Where it gives just change for change's sake,
it's not so hot.
On 26/06/2026 08:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:
The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.
I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time
because I know what I am going to find there. I can't be bothered with
most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.
I don't mind repeated programmes because much of the time, the best--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
viewing is old TV series but there are many series that I did not watch >first time around and still don't watch now.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:11:50 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 26/06/2026 08:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:
The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.
I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time
because I know what I am going to find there. I can't be bothered with
most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.
I think you are missing the point here. No-one is suggesting watching
a bunch of obscure and niche channels. The suggestion is that services
like BBC iPlayer allow you to pick the programmes you want at the time
you want them.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:21:23 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"[]
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
The "developments in technology" mean I have to go hunting around, since
TPTB have _used_ those developments to stop me doing what I was before -
finding certain prog.s on certain channels at certain times, without
having to faff about. Sure, I'm a fan of technology - where it gives me
something new/additional. Where it gives just change for change's sake,
it's not so hot.
The developments in technology enable you to watch *your* choice of
material in *your* time, not someone else's. If you're happier letting someone else choose what to show you according to *their* timetable,
that's your preference and you're perfectly entitled to it, but the
extra choice feels like a genuine advantage to me. I doubt that you've
ever complained about having to go 'hunting around' in a bookshop
instead of waiting for someone to tell you what you can read that day.
Rod.
On 27/06/2026 12:07, Scott wrote:[]
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:11:50 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time
because I know what I am going to find there. I can't be bothered with
most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.
I think you are missing the point here. No-one is suggesting watching
a bunch of obscure and niche channels. The suggestion is that services
like BBC iPlayer allow you to pick the programmes you want at the time
you want them.
As long as your broadband is reliably fast enough and your TV is smart enough. In my case, neither is true.
and the use of "oh, you can find your normal prog. on iPlayer" or
similar to justify the disruption. Why not put the cause of the
disruption (often sport!) on iPlayer and/or the "obscure" channel.
On 27/06/2026 20:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
and the use of "oh, you can find your normal prog. on iPlayer" or
similar to justify the disruption. Why not put the cause of the
disruption (often sport!) on iPlayer and/or the "obscure" channel.
Like it or not, the sport often gets far larger audiences that the stuff that you probably want to watch and it is, of course, normally live.
Whatever they put on, there will be someone who is not happy.
But now we_do_ have all these channels, it is no longer_necessary_ to
disrupt things to show the sport. Especially as those who like their
prog.s when and where they expect them might well include those less tech-savvy.
I agree, there should be dedicated sports channels - or, a different way
of looking at it, dedicated sports-free channels, for as NY said
"scheduled same-time-every-week programming".
And I'm sure somewhere in the country/world there will be athletics and
other sport which "has" to take precedence over regular schedule programmes.[]
I don't follow much sport, but when I do, I'm happy to go to another
channel for it.
But the entire concept of regular scheduled programming is probably considered hideously old-fashioned by the latest generation (or two),
On 28/06/2026 01:26, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
But now we_do_ have all these channels, it is no longer_necessary_ to
disrupt things to show the sport. Especially as those who like their
prog.s when and where they expect them might well include those less
tech-savvy.
Also no longer necessary complain, just tune to one of the hundreds of channel or watch the programme online.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:45:56 +0100, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I agree, there should be dedicated sports channels - or, a different way
of looking at it, dedicated sports-free channels, for as NY said
"scheduled same-time-every-week programming".
This is just same-time-every-year programming. Stop bloody whinging.
And I'm sure somewhere in the country/world there will be athletics and >>> other sport which "has" to take precedence over regular schedule programmes.[]
These are regular schedule programmes. The schedule is just different to what you seem to want.
You obviously have no regard for "those less tech-savvy" who may find "tun[ing] to one of the hundreds of channel or ... online" not as
intuitive as you do.
Perhaps the sport could get its own slot on "the prime channels" so the _weekly_ schedule didn't/doesn't get disrupted. I'm sure there is plenty
of sport that could fill that "slot" when the same-time-every-year
events aren't on. (It used to be, for example, normal that Saturday afternoons on the "prime channels" - and a slot that evening, with a distinctive theme tune - was sport.)
[]
On 28/06/2026 12:50, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
You obviously have no regard for "those less tech-savvy" who may find
"tun[ing] to one of the hundreds of channel or ... online" not as
intuitive as you do.
They will probably not want to watch the stuff on those channels. Many
only watch one or two channels.
On 28/06/2026 12:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Perhaps the sport could get its own slot on "the prime channels" so theThe timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a
_weekly_ schedule didn't/doesn't get disrupted. I'm sure there is plenty
of sport that could fill that "slot" when the same-time-every-year
events aren't on. (It used to be, for example, normal that Saturday
afternoons on the "prime channels" - and a slot that evening, with a
distinctive theme tune - was sport.)
[]
field" games are not set by our broadcasters, but by those running the tournament. The times are set to maximise the audiences and so the advertising revenue in the USA.
As for filling the (normally) empty slots on a 24 hour channel with
other sports, even the popular ones now are struggling to get an
audience outside peak hours.
On 2026/6/28 13:41:13, JMB99 wrote:
On 28/06/2026 12:50, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
You obviously have no regard for "those less tech-savvy" who may find
"tun[ing] to one of the hundreds of channel or ... online" not as
intuitive as you do.
They will probably not want to watch the stuff on those channels. Many
only watch one or two channels.
Exactly! But if what they _want_ to watch has been _moved_ to one of
those channels (let alone to online-only) ...
On 2026/6/28 14:0:37, John Williamson wrote:
The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a
field" games are not set by our broadcasters, but by those running the
tournament. The times are set to maximise the audiences and so the
advertising revenue in the USA.
Ah yes, "must broadcast at the exact minute it happens" (same applies to news, though there it's "must discuss _before_ it happens"). Whatever happened to "look away now"?
No, I was suggesting a "sports" slot on what you call the "prime"
As for filling the (normally) empty slots on a 24 hour channel with
other sports, even the popular ones now are struggling to get an
audience outside peak hours.
channels, so those who like an ordered life know to avoid that time, and those who _do_ want it also can have it at an ordered time. My reference
to other sports was to forestall anyone saying "but the world cup [or whatever] is only on at times - what will you fill that slot with otherwise?".
The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a
field" games are not set by our broadcasters,
On 28/06/2026 14:00, John Williamson wrote:
The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a
field" games are not set by our broadcasters,
Is that Two Tiers?
Would pay good money to see him being kicked around a field!
On 28/06/2026 14:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/6/28 14:0:37, John Williamson wrote:
The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a
field" games are not set by our broadcasters, but by those running the
tournament. The times are set to maximise the audiences and so the
advertising revenue in the USA.
Ah yes, "must broadcast at the exact minute it happens" (same applies to
news, though there it's "must discuss _before_ it happens"). Whatever
happened to "look away now"?
The broadcasters grew the ability to screen all sorts of stuff as it happened, rather than having to carry a videotape on a motorbike.
Not gonna happen unless you can persuade the organisers to hold their matches at a convenient time for you.No, I was suggesting a "sports" slot on what you call the "prime"
As for filling the (normally) empty slots on a 24 hour channel with
other sports, even the popular ones now are struggling to get an
audience outside peak hours.
channels, so those who like an ordered life know to avoid that time, and
those who _do_ want it also can have it at an ordered time. My reference
to other sports was to forestall anyone saying "but the world cup [or
whatever] is only on at times - what will you fill that slot with
otherwise?".
But... WhenIwerealad, football used to happen on every ground in the
country at the same time on a Saturday afternoon, all the results were
in for the pools countdown on the news barring the occasional late kick
off, and just about everybody was sitting in Front of the Telly, or listening to the radio, checking their coupons. There was the occasional
lower league match on a Wednesday evening, but they didn't matter as
they weren't on the coupon. You also got "Match Of the Day" on the BBC,
and that was all you could watch unless you actually went to the match.
Now, everybody who has an OB team and a van wants to broadcast *every*
match that they've paid the FA a fortune to show *live* as it happens,
if not before, and to avoid splitting the advertising revenue, they all
need to be played at different times. There are also a lot more matches
per week now than there were then.
On 2026/6/28 15:59:24, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/06/2026 14:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Whatever happened to "look away now"?
The broadcasters grew the ability to screen all sorts of stuff as it
happened, rather than having to carry a videotape on a motorbike.
They also have the ability to broadcast it _not_ when it happens. No motorbike involved.
Not gonna happen unless you can persuade the organisers to hold their
matches at a convenient time for you.
Again, I question why it has to be live.
But... WhenIwerealad, football used to happen on every ground in the
country at the same time on a Saturday afternoon, all the results were
in for the pools countdown on the news barring the occasional late kick
off, and just about everybody was sitting in Front of the Telly, or
listening to the radio, checking their coupons. There was the occasional
And I remember when it actually showed a real teletype printhead!
need to be played at different times. There are also a lot more matchesYup - so a dedicated sports channel would suit everybody, nonne?
per week now than there were then.
JMB99 and I don't want to watch "obscure and niche channels" - at least,
if we do, we're willing to hunt for them. It's the tendency to disrupt regular scheduling on common/popular channels that we are objecting to -
and the use of "oh, you can find your normal prog. on iPlayer" or
similar to justify the disruption. Why not put the cause of the
disruption (often sport!) on iPlayer and/or the "obscure" channel.
On 27/06/2026 20:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
JMB99 and I don't want to watch "obscure and niche channels" - at least,
if we do, we're willing to hunt for them. It's the tendency to disrupt
regular scheduling on common/popular channels that we are objecting to -
and the use of "oh, you can find your normal prog. on iPlayer" or
similar to justify the disruption. Why not put the cause of the
disruption (often sport!) on iPlayer and/or the "obscure" channel.
Part of the problem with the "you can always find the programme on
iPlayer" argument is that often you *can't* because in many cases a programme only becomes available there once it has had its showing on
linear TV. If the linear showing is delayed by live sport etc, the
online version should be made available as a substitute for those people
who can access it, even if some people will need to wait until the
delayed linear showing.
Part of the problem with the "you can always find the programme on
iPlayer" argument is that often you *can't* because in many cases a programme only becomes available there once it has had its showing on
linear TV. If the linear showing is delayed by live sport etc, the
online version should be made available as a substitute for those people
who can access it, even if some people will need to wait until the
delayed linear showing.
On 29/06/2026 13:22, NY wrote:On the fairly rare occasions that I've used iPlayer because I've missed
Part of the problem with the "you can always find the programme on
iPlayer" argument is that often you *can't* because in many cases a
programme only becomes available there once it has had its showing on
linear TV. If the linear showing is delayed by live sport etc, the
online version should be made available as a substitute for those
people who can access it, even if some people will need to wait until
the delayed linear showing.
I thought many programmes are shown on iPlayer before broadcast TV and
some never get shown on broadcast TV.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:19:50 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,983 |