FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
Jomtien wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:

But a service that they neither want nor need, hence their move away
to a free FTA arrangement.

If you really believe that then you're not seeing the wider picture.
Basically both the BBC and ITV are having to pay increased costs in
programme rights now, so they've really just substituted one cost for
another.

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up. On the contrary, the
only solid information that I ever saw released came from Disney who
stated quite clearly that they wouldn't be looking for more money from
the BBC now that it is FTA on 2D.

But if you look at the costs of getting rights to sporting events, you will
find that since Sky came into the market these have rocketed upwards.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article , Jomtien wrote:
But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
made by or for the BBC.

There are a few, but for how much longer? If the BBC continues to emulate
their commercial competition they will eventually become indistinguishable
from it, and the argument for funding the BBC in a different way will lose
any last vestige of validity. Then it'll *all* be rubbish.

Rod.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:57:59 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

|In article , Jomtien wrote:
| But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
| Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
| science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
| photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
| and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
| service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
| news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
| cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
| Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)
|
| Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
| made by or for the BBC.
|
|There are a few, but for how much longer? If the BBC continues to emulate
|their commercial competition they will eventually become indistinguishable
|from it, and the argument for funding the BBC in a different way will lose
|any last vestige of validity. Then it'll *all* be rubbish.

As a counter example, the Beeb's Flagship Wildlife programs and Costume
Dramas, not to mention Dr Who, make a large profit, from sales overseas.
They will continue into the foreseeable future.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.

Millions of people eat Pot Noodles. That doesn't make them taste nice.


So would you put a tax on Pot Noodles in order to subsidise those who
eat pate de foie gras (or, more analogously with the BBC, those who eat
McDonald's)?


The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

If you use that definition then everything purchased anywhere at any
time is a monopoly. Which clearly isn't the case.


Not at all. Generally the money spent on purchasing a product does not
go to one of the vendor's competitors. Someone who takes out a contract
with Sky does not give money to NTL. But someone who watches ITV must
pay the BBC. It's the "unique way we're funded", you know.


I am in favour of the licence fee simply because there is no other way
of ensuring that at least one broadcaster gets enough money to make
programmes that may not only appeal to the lowest common denominator
viewer.



But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
made by or for the BBC.


Your opinion, not mine. The overwhelming majority of the BBC's output
is made up of the type of programming that is freely available on other
channels, and in any case could not be described as public service
broadcasting. Whether or not we consider this output to be good, bad or
indifferent there is no reason for public money to be spent on it.

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien
All FTV cards will work in any box and never need reactivating.

No, they only work in the substandard POSes with the Sky logo on them
or in hacked-up CI modules which are arguably circumvention devices.

--
MJR/slef
Free Sat FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/astefaq

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On 4 Jun 2006 12:56:39 -0700, "Arfur Million"
wrote:

But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

Hear hear. It's bad enough that the commercial "public service"
channels are dishing out so much crap, it's worse that the BBC sinks
to their level. That is NOT what we pay them for.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:14:52 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up.

A 6% supplement is the going rate, apparently.

Doing it this way enables them to try to start some kind of
non-Sky "Freesat" system whereby they will - just like Freeview - be
the only entertainment channels in a small pond, safe from competition
from any subscription services.

The last time I looked (yesterday) there were many FTA channels on the
Sky platform. The BBC and ITV are not alone.

Yes, but the vast majority of FTA channels are shopping or quiz
channels. There are very few properly funded 'entertainment' channels
which would pose any threat to the BBC or ITV.

because Freeview is still
such a licence to print money for them.

Which presumably supposes that Freeview is in fact very popular.
Probably because it requires no subscription.

Probably because (if you're lucky enough not to need a new aerial)
it's cheap. However, Freeview is a licence to print money for the
terrestrials because it's a cosy arrangement where the amount of
channels is strictly limited, and the majority of additional channels
that might be a threat to the BBC, ITV, C4, Five, etc, are actually
provided by BBC, ITV, C4, Five, etc.

I'm not the only person who won't pay a subscription to watch TV. More
than 1 in 2 Britons think as I do.

If BBC, ITV, C4 and Five are all they want to watch, then that's up to
them. Subscription services will always be an available alternative
for people who are dissatisfied with the same old stuff from the usual
suspects and want something more. And millions do.
--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article , Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
| made by or for the BBC.
|
|There are a few, but for how much longer? If the BBC continues to emulate
|their commercial competition they will eventually become indistinguishable
|from it, and the argument for funding the BBC in a different way will lose
|any last vestige of validity. Then it'll *all* be rubbish.

As a counter example, the Beeb's Flagship Wildlife programs and Costume
Dramas, not to mention Dr Who, make a large profit, from sales overseas.
They will continue into the foreseeable future.

I hope so. The ones you mention, the Proms, and some of the documentaries on
BBC4 are about the only things left that make the BBC worthwhile. However, if
the BBC can only survive because they can make profits through sales rather
than providing a broadcasting service, will they really be fulfilling their
duty to the licence payers? In fact, will they really be broadcasters at all?

Rod.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

charles wrote:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up. On the contrary, the
only solid information that I ever saw released came from Disney who
stated quite clearly that they wouldn't be looking for more money from
the BBC now that it is FTA on 2D.

But if you look at the costs of getting rights to sporting events, you will
find that since Sky came into the market these have rocketed upwards.

Surely, but this has nothing to do with the BBC being FTA.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up.

A 6% supplement is the going rate, apparently.

Why not say 10 or 20 or 90?

The only concrete figure that I'm aware of is 0 from Disney.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)