Hey your video has some special information that I have been searching for. Have you discovered Zoocon CD99 TV (search on google)? My mate thought it was the deal and it saved big time money.
The quality of programmes was better back then with far less repeats so it didn't really matter that there were only 4 channels. The amount of shit on the box nowadays is substantial.
be selective then, watch the good stuff and not the rubbish. The difference with 4 channels was that you soon ran out of options if all 4 were showing rubbish
I'm selective as hell, and there is rarely anything on, and it's all repeats anyway, there are only so many times in a year when you can watch the same episode of Fawlty Towers.
I flick through just about all the channels I get with Sky and there is little, if anything, I want to watch, and if there is, chances are I've seen it. There is no more imagination in broadcasting, which is why internet sites like this one are eventually going to replace TV completely.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think that 4 channels is bloody discusting! Why the hell with all the companys willing to sell their souls for a broadcast license was there only 4 terrestrial channels in the 80s? Im glad in this day and age we have satellite tv i'd never go near terrestrial tv.
You had to live through it to understand why it worked. When 18 million people sat down to watch Morcambe & Wise at Christmas, the whole country was sitting down together - then everyone in the street talked about it. Oddly enough, people got by with less telly. Ever wondered how they got by a hundred years ago without it? They had conversations!
The United States has 6 national networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, PBS and UPN) which get their progamming to the public via locally owned TV stations (a bit like how ITV used to be) If VHF had been used in conjunction with UHF we could have had 6 or 7 TV networks.
but the networks aren't national, local stations are affiliated to them.
There is no guarantee that your 'market' will have all of the big 6 (and your list is a bit out of date) and there is no universal coverage - licenses mostly cover cities or large conurbations.
Some 'markets' have 30 TV stations, others a a handful, some are missing a few network affiliates - you might not have a Fox or a CW station in your area
I know that, but chances are you will get most if not all of the main 6 networks, that's why I referred to them as national networks, don't be so pedantic.
The 'pedantry' is relevant when you come to comparing the numbers of TV stations.... universal coverage which we take for granted here is a massive factor
This has been an interesting little diversion but could we get back to my main point that we could have had 6 or 7 national TV channels if we used VHF after the 405-line Tv system was switched off?
The only reason Channel 5 isn't avaliable everywhere is because the French said broadcasts from southern parts of Britain would cause interference on one of their channels, damn those Frogs, they shouldn't be able to tell us what to do with our television wavebands.
That wasn't only the reason, many parts of the UK a long way from France didn't get Channel 5.
The reason is because the engineers in the 60's (both on a UK and an international level) planned the system for a 4 channel national network (yes they planned for C4 right back in the 60's!) Therefore there wasn't much room for the 5th and it was squeezed into gaps including the until then unused UHF ch37.
I honestly didn't know that (cheers for educating me) because I've always been used to recieving 5 channels from the Winter Hill transmitter in Bolton.
@TashkentFox My cousin living an hour or so outside Atlanta cannot receive NBC or CBS, two of the main networks. She can only get PBS and ABC, digitally. Then 2 religious ones and FOX via analogue relays. "Chances are" that you will not get all of the main networks, unless you're in a city. Any basic research would reveal this.
My uncle had a satellite dish back then and it was crap , i remember it took hours to set up and tune and you never really knew what you were watching- or if you could find the same channel again. Things got better when SKY had set channels.
My local hifi shop in Blackburn offered the then new revolutionary sateliite systems by Luxor;super channel/music box and sky channel were among the channels on offer!
Nice to see mellor without his chelsea shirt. Do you notice that the only parts that are edited are when he's on? That's funny. Seriously though this is a great clip and it shows how the times have changed.
I noticed that too. 1985 is not quite accurate. There wasn't much on offer back then. Three more channels? And they didn't mention that quite a few people had cable TV already in the UK.
Oh yeah, and terrestrial TV in 1986, was still worth a look.
We all know what "young professionals" were in the 1980's don't we? That's right, YUPPIES! Thatcher's children who bought shares here, there and everywhere, chucked out their LP's for CD's and talked loudly on massive mobile phones before Trigger Happy TV ever thought of it. "Young professionals"? It was pure snobbery to me. Mike S.
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey your video has some special information that I have been searching for. Have you discovered Zoocon CD99 TV (search on google)? My mate thought it was the deal and it saved big time money.
OscarWildTP 5 months ago
Err...it was 1986 because they showed a clip of the Royal Wedding of Prince Andrew and Fergie, which took place in July 1986.
Feisty1967 1 year ago
Skin flicks late at night? I can't believe Leonard Parkin came out with that one!! Lol!!
Feisty1967 1 year ago
The internet will take over when they make 40" screens
taliban0king 2 years ago 2
You have to say looking back now that this was the beginning of the end for ITV as we know it.
Foloman1 2 years ago 3
The quality of programmes was better back then with far less repeats so it didn't really matter that there were only 4 channels. The amount of shit on the box nowadays is substantial.
RonnieFukinSize 2 years ago 11
There was always rubbish on TV. At least now with more channels you can always find something to watch
LuthansaTerminal 2 years ago
But it's more rubbish, I don't want more rubbish.
TashkentFox 2 years ago
be selective then, watch the good stuff and not the rubbish. The difference with 4 channels was that you soon ran out of options if all 4 were showing rubbish
LuthansaTerminal 2 years ago
I'm selective as hell, and there is rarely anything on, and it's all repeats anyway, there are only so many times in a year when you can watch the same episode of Fawlty Towers.
TashkentFox 2 years ago
All repeats.... you obviously don't look hard enough if the furthest up the EPG you get is G.O.L.D!
LuthansaTerminal 2 years ago
I flick through just about all the channels I get with Sky and there is little, if anything, I want to watch, and if there is, chances are I've seen it. There is no more imagination in broadcasting, which is why internet sites like this one are eventually going to replace TV completely.
TashkentFox 2 years ago 5
@TashkentFox Well said.
Feisty1967 1 year ago
I agree terrestrial tv is appauling.
AlannTH 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think that 4 channels is bloody discusting! Why the hell with all the companys willing to sell their souls for a broadcast license was there only 4 terrestrial channels in the 80s? Im glad in this day and age we have satellite tv i'd never go near terrestrial tv.
c64kid 3 years ago
You had to live through it to understand why it worked. When 18 million people sat down to watch Morcambe & Wise at Christmas, the whole country was sitting down together - then everyone in the street talked about it. Oddly enough, people got by with less telly. Ever wondered how they got by a hundred years ago without it? They had conversations!
dunkiep 3 years ago 12
@dunkiep
...and world wars.
ludocrat 1 year ago
There wasn't the room for more than 4 terrestrial channels - the fifth was squeezed in but not nationally.
It's only now with digital (not an option in the 80's) that we can have more terrestrial channels
LuthansaTerminal 2 years ago
There would have been room for 6 national channels (like in America) if the VHF waveband had been used.
TashkentFox 2 years ago
America doesn't have '6 national TV channels', it has several thousand small local stations based in cities.. with little inbetween
The UK has national TV stations and universal coverage. If we carried on using VHF we would have squeezed another 2 national services in
LuthansaTerminal 2 years ago
The United States has 6 national networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, PBS and UPN) which get their progamming to the public via locally owned TV stations (a bit like how ITV used to be) If VHF had been used in conjunction with UHF we could have had 6 or 7 TV networks.
TashkentFox 2 years ago
but the networks aren't national, local stations are affiliated to them.
There is no guarantee that your 'market' will have all of the big 6 (and your list is a bit out of date) and there is no universal coverage - licenses mostly cover cities or large conurbations.
Some 'markets' have 30 TV stations, others a a handful, some are missing a few network affiliates - you might not have a Fox or a CW station in your area
LuthansaTerminal 2 years ago
I know that, but chances are you will get most if not all of the main 6 networks, that's why I referred to them as national networks, don't be so pedantic.
TashkentFox 2 years ago
The 'pedantry' is relevant when you come to comparing the numbers of TV stations.... universal coverage which we take for granted here is a massive factor
LuthansaTerminal 2 years ago
This has been an interesting little diversion but could we get back to my main point that we could have had 6 or 7 national TV channels if we used VHF after the 405-line Tv system was switched off?
TashkentFox 2 years ago
yes, we'd have had 6 and a half - the present 4 and a half services channels and 2 on VHF
LuthansaTerminal 2 years ago
The only reason Channel 5 isn't avaliable everywhere is because the French said broadcasts from southern parts of Britain would cause interference on one of their channels, damn those Frogs, they shouldn't be able to tell us what to do with our television wavebands.
TashkentFox 2 years ago
That wasn't only the reason, many parts of the UK a long way from France didn't get Channel 5.
The reason is because the engineers in the 60's (both on a UK and an international level) planned the system for a 4 channel national network (yes they planned for C4 right back in the 60's!) Therefore there wasn't much room for the 5th and it was squeezed into gaps including the until then unused UHF ch37.
LuthansaTerminal 2 years ago
I honestly didn't know that (cheers for educating me) because I've always been used to recieving 5 channels from the Winter Hill transmitter in Bolton.
TashkentFox 2 years ago
@TashkentFox Most of the small relays in France only have three channels! We should have just planned the fifth one earlier :P
Adam0792 9 months ago
@TashkentFox My cousin living an hour or so outside Atlanta cannot receive NBC or CBS, two of the main networks. She can only get PBS and ABC, digitally. Then 2 religious ones and FOX via analogue relays. "Chances are" that you will not get all of the main networks, unless you're in a city. Any basic research would reveal this.
filmnet 1 year ago
My uncle had a satellite dish back then and it was crap , i remember it took hours to set up and tune and you never really knew what you were watching- or if you could find the same channel again. Things got better when SKY had set channels.
mark0776829 3 years ago
My local hifi shop in Blackburn offered the then new revolutionary sateliite systems by Luxor;super channel/music box and sky channel were among the channels on offer!
AnthonyUK 3 years ago
Nice to see mellor without his chelsea shirt. Do you notice that the only parts that are edited are when he's on? That's funny. Seriously though this is a great clip and it shows how the times have changed.
weirdnetwork 3 years ago
this has to be after 1985 the royal wedding of prince andrew and sarah ferguson happenend in 1986
jgrantjo 4 years ago
I noticed that too. 1985 is not quite accurate. There wasn't much on offer back then. Three more channels? And they didn't mention that quite a few people had cable TV already in the UK.
Oh yeah, and terrestrial TV in 1986, was still worth a look.
agfagaevart 3 years ago 5
Blimey! Nice clip
KevCityboy 4 years ago
Its so amazing to look back and see how much technology and indeed the country and world has changed in 20 years. Its not a long time
TheBritishWatcher 4 years ago
I am sure that this report is from 1986.
geraint0808 4 years ago
this has to be 86 as it shows a clip of challenger shuttle disaster and fergie wedding.
j4wn 3 years ago 2
£1400 for a satellite dish!! Man, by 1985 standards that's a lot of money.
tripleseis81 4 years ago
We all know what "young professionals" were in the 1980's don't we? That's right, YUPPIES! Thatcher's children who bought shares here, there and everywhere, chucked out their LP's for CD's and talked loudly on massive mobile phones before Trigger Happy TV ever thought of it. "Young professionals"? It was pure snobbery to me. Mike S.
25AUG1968 4 years ago