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.
> 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.)
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.
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
When did they change it from if you could watch to if you actually watch?
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.
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.
> 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.
These aren't just any vacuum tubes. They are each the size of a small fridge, and extremely specialized for use in radio broadcasting.
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.
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.
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.