Another UK tely question.

Or is it tele? Either way, it’s funny.

Anyway, I have a friend who lived on base in England for a while. He says that England only has like four channels. Is this true? If so, how can you stand it? Do you have cable or satelite tv (err I mean tely)? If so, do you get American cable like HBO, or do you have your own cable channels.
Also, I heard that in gameshows over there, people do not win big money or big prizes like new cars. They win blenders and other cheezy prizes. What’s the point.

Help my ignorance here. What is the straight dope on tely in the UK?

But I can tell you this much with complete confidence:

First, it’s spelt “telly.”

Second, there are five terrestrial (i.e. similar to the major US network) channels: BBC1, BBC2, ITV (or is it Carlton now?), Channel 4, and Channel 5. And they largely crap all over US TV programming, with the possible exception of US shows such as 20/20 and Dateline. (I won’t get into why this is so as it would take way too much time and it’s getting late.) To make things even more confusing for you, there are regional differences between the terrestrial channels, so the programming one sees in Yorkshire won’t be exactly the same that someone would see that day in London, for example.

As for cable and satellite, they have both, with many of the same channels one finds in the US, but with a UK slant. There are also cable/satellite versions of the UK terrestrial channels, plus their own, differently-named versions of MTV, ESPN, CNN, HBO and so forth - all more tailored to UK viewers’ tastes, for the most part. But rest assured, plenty of US pap makes it over there just the same…

Now I’m missing life in England again! Anyway, hope this helps a bit.
Cheers,
R-n-R

First, it’s telly!

We have five analogue terrestial channels, although the fifth is broadcast at low power levels and isn’t available everywhere. (They are BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel4 and Channel5.) The BBC channels are paid for out of TV licence revenues, the others by advertising.

In addition, we have terrestial digital channels, some of which are free (such as ITV2) and some which you have to pay for (such as FilmFour.) That’s about all you can get through your antenna.

Then comes satellite and cable. Here we have just about as many channels as you’re willing to pay for including a lot of American channels (e.g. CNN, MTV, Fox. Discovery, Nickelodeon.) Thing is, the cable TV market is far from saturated - most people don’t bother unless the local cable company is offering the channels in addition to telecoms services. Pay-per-view is still a dangerous foreign concept to many of us, and as for pay-per-view sport with adverts shoehorned in, that is the work of the Antichrist!(The TV licence has established the concept pay = no adverts into our psyche. Or at least into mine!)

As for game shows - yes, some of them have very small prizes. I think the highest offered is on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire”, but others don’t offer much more than a plastic trophy. People still appear on them and people still watch, so I guess it makes sense to somebody. Generally, the easier and more trivial the gameshow, the bigger the prizes! Gameshows which are tougher or even (shudder) intellectual have smaller prizes, they just don’t get the audiences.

We also have books, magazines, radio, videos, cinema, theatre, computers, restaurants, public houses, sports centres, friends, family and so on, so if there’s nothing worth watching on any of our five channels, we are free to go and do something else.

Actually, a new car was the standard gameshow prize of the 1970s and 1980s. The trend is now towards cash or, as matt says, just a trophy for the more cerebral gameshows. The top prize on WWTBAM is £1,000,000, considerably more than the ~£700,000 prize on its US counterpart.

ITV is actually a network of regional broadcasters and Carlton is the broadcaster for the London region. In Manchester it’s Granada, in Leeds it’s Yorkshire, in Birmingham it’s Central, and so on.

Although it was once true that many game shows gave away goods and cars as the top prizes, the Game Show situation of Britain is changing with the advent of “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” last year setting a precedent for 2 new money prize game shows; ‘The people Versus’ and ‘The Weakest Link’.

To find out more visit the UK Game Show Pages:

http://www.qwertyuiop.co.uk

More TV channels does not equal better TV.

1000 channels of crap is not IMHO better than 2 channels of quality.

Now that we have digital TV there are simply not enough decent programmes to go round so we get an even higher percentage of repeats on such channels than on the regular ones.

Many people I know simply think that paying to gain access to such content is poor value for money.
Were it not for monopolising certain sports, satellite, and digital TV would not be viable in this country.

I have to agree with Rock-n-Rolga. In general British television is usually a class above the standard fare from America. I don’t know why it is, but American programming seems to be very formula driven, and dumbed down to a lowest-common-denominator. Maybe the bean-counters that run Hollywood have taken over the networks too?

While the Poms also produce crap, it seems to be substantially less in comparison to the total output.

I saw the british version of WWTBAM on the BBC America channel the other day. The questions were much harder. I would guess this has to do with a much better public education system in Britian. Any British people care to comment?

No, we’re just naturally nore intelligent :wink:

Except me. That was supposed to be more.

Bear in mind that some of them will relate to things with which the average Briton is very familiar and the average American is not. History, politics, literature, sport and TV are all highly culturally-specific. A question like, “who was Gerald Ford’s Vice-President” or “What is the State Capital of New York” would pretty much stump the average Briton, but I guess most Americans would find them easy.

I agree with TomH. I’ve watched quite a few American quiz shows and you do need local knowledge. Sometimes, though, it’s just emphasis. For example, one angle on an historic event would be studied in greater depth in one country than the other and vice verse.

If there is a noticable difference, i’d guess it would be on international current afairs type stuff.

I’m pretty sure British tv is more bearable and there are reasons why that is the case. It’s a long story but three letters would sum it up: BBC. The beeb acts as a quality control mechanism (which other broadcasters have to try and compete with).

London_Calling, I mostly agree with you, but I have my reservations about the BBC. When I came over here I think the BBC deserved the plaudits you have given it, but since then I think it’s started to go downhill. The documentaries are not what they used to be, there is barely any sports coverage left to speak of, and there has not been a decent sitcom in years. And even they have been desparate enough to take in shows from the US–only ten years ago, the traffic would have been going all the other way. Then, of course, there’s the licence fee. I know, I know, it’s a part of British TV life, it’s a fair way of funding the BBC, etc. But if every household which owns a TV (though mine doesn’t, 98% of UK households do) is paying £111 a year to fund the BBC, then they have a right to expect pretty good programming. And if the quality of programming is going down while the licence fee is rising, then there’s a problem.

Just my 2p…

Part of the reason for the aknowledged decline in BBC standards has been the rise of the bean-counters under the stewardship of the director John Birt who has, thankfully left.It will take years to winkle the weasels out of their dearly held positions.

Most programmes were made directly by the BBC but his model was similar to the Thatcheresque ideal. He made production into a separate company from which the BBC would purchase its material.
In other words he tried to privatise production.
The idea was to buy in programmes from any source available but this has meant looking at the most expedient.
Rather than create new auduience arenas the ‘beeb’ has become mundance and undaventurous, it fails to take the risks it once did and is now far ‘safer’ in bean-counter’ speak.

The result of this fiasco is that much of the developing talent and the bankable talent have decided that they will work for commercial tv and get more money since the public sevice ethos of the BBC hardly exists any more - if the BBC will not take chances then there is no longer a reason to stay with it - take the money and run.
We have lately seen the beeb chasing audience share by using the type of output normally associated with commercial tv such as fly-on-wall ‘documentary’ and weekday primetime gameshows.
Like many things the more you chase it the harder it is to get. Instead of doing what it does best and creating new areas of interest the beeb is doing a lame job of taking on the commercials in their field.

What has also happened during this time is that there has been the development of a digital tv network which has cost a fortune and which hardly anyone can recieve.
The publc are not stupid and are not prepared to pay out the ‘first adopter’ premium for a service which is second rate and for which the suppliers of decoders have not yet settled on a standard.
There are literally tens of thousands of tv sets unsold but brand new left in dealers stock.Thes tv sets have digital decoders built into them but no-one can recieve the images as they are not yet being transmitted!
The decoders are fixed to only recieve one suppliers programmes, its as if you had the tv tuned in to one channel only for which you have to pay and you cannot switch suppliers.

The beeb have recently announced that there will be an extra £30 mill for programmes which soound like a lot but it is miniscule when you look at the total output.
With that sort of cash they will be able to make a couple of series and a few documentaries.

Looks like we’ll be getting more chat shows then.

Duke reckons there’s "hardly any sport left to speak of " I think it has all migrated to my T.V. Too much sport- bad, bad! From kabbadi to (eek!) cricket, and fishing to the inevitable football. Re. sitcoms, “Father Ted” was really good, till the main actor inconveniently died.

Celyn, Father Ted was a great show, one of the funniest I’ve seen in years. But it was on Channel 4, and, not only that, but it was produced by an Irish network. Channel 4 only bought the rights to show it in the UK, just like they buy the rights to show Friends and Frasier.

And your TV might be awash with sport, but then you probably have Sky cable, which is cheating. I was only talking about the BBC, which doesn’t have any sport anymore because Rupert Murdoch bought it all.

I kind of agree with Dave but probably with a different sentiment. I’m not sure about John Birt. I’m pretty sure I think (?) he was the right man for the beeb at the right time. It desperately needed a cool, no nonsense business orientated manager at that time - having Birt was like having a full-time Management Consultant at the head.

And he did achieve an awful lot. I don’t think it’s easy to see from the outside how the beeb was drifting at a time when the entire tv world was focused and moving toward new ways of producing programmes. The beeb was turning into the clichéd monolith, unable to move at all, let alone with the times. Birt instigated fundamental reforms like out sourcing skills, external commissioning and contracting of series, rationalisation of resources (including controversially BBC News), departmental restructuring and a lot, lot more. This tightening up and refocusing has allowed the beeb to concentrate more on specific areas and to regain forward direction and focus.

So, Duke I agree the beeb has cut back on front of the house productions but, unfortunately, they have needed to concentrate on other areas of improvement because of dramatic changes in the wider tv environment. Birt’s reforms also included building a new competitive infrastructure ( News 24, preparation for the Digi revolution, other tv channels I don’t see but they are out there somewhere…). Also, BBC Worldwide – a Birt led separate BBC business – has grown remarkably in short time and contributes significantly to the coffers.

IMHO, the beeb’s hanging on in this fast moving world by the skin of its teeth and thanks to the Birt reforms. The beeb, I believe, is now leaner and hungrier, than was the old “This is the Home Service” beeb.

How much is Murdock paying for footie? I forget, but that demonstrates how the (excuse me, please) goalposts have moved in the last few years – and you can’t justify spending that percentage of licence money on footie to my Gran (and her footie hating mafia). The beeb has to satisfy all the license payers.

I also think that now that job has been done (the infrastructure is in place and the finances in better shape) Greg Dyke is also the right man for the job. Its time for the beeb to reassert itself and Dyke’s the man to do it. A shrewd appointment, IMHO, but he has to deliver and soon.
I’ve mentioned my view on the license fee before so I hope this isn’t going to bore you.

OK, the cost for running BB1 is approx 40 % less than ITV, it’s nearest competitor in the market and in the ratings.
Is BBC1 a bargain because of that ? I say emphatically, yes it is.
Why ? Because ITV, like all commercial channels is not free. Its funded entirely from advertising revenue. Where does that revenue come from ? Not the pockets of shareholders of the companies advertising. It comes from you very time you go to the supermarket, petrol station or buy anything. There is nowhere else that money can come from…

Therefore, we are all paying, on average, about £4.00 per week more for our shopping than we would otherwise to pay for an unwatchable commercial tv channel. Nice.

Second thing about the license fee is that there is built in to it some assistance for the elderly and other financially troubled groups. Next time you go to Tesco, ask them to knock four quid off the weekly bill because you can’t feed the electricity meter.

Anyway, that more than enough of me.

A correction to my previous if I may.

It turns out the BBC is promising an extra 30% for programmes which is very differant to what I said earlier.
Didn’t intend to mislead anyone - carry on folks.

Duke - so maybe my house is inhabited by sport-gremlins: they visit to steal the biro pens and teaspoons, and leave a plague of sports instead. (And NO re. Sky cable.) I mean, they even talk about sport on the news! Huh. But I do detest the licence fee because it is such a strange idea, and if London_Calling is right re. assistance for financially troubled groups (apart from the elderly), it is a closely guarded secret. Probably because the news is full of the dreaded sport… maybe I should go and do some calming basket weaving.

You can get a free licence if you’re over 75 and a reduced licence if you’re registered blind, but they are the only exemptions.

IMHO, the problem with the BBC is not the Birtist bean counters but the relentless pursuit of lowest-common-denominator ratings. One of the main justifications for the licence fee is that the BBC provides programmes of a type and quality that commercial broadcasters would not generally provide. The more the BBC tries to emulate ITV (and, increasingly, Channel 5), the more difficult it will be to justify its existence.