1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
From the BBC Annual Report:

http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annrep...nualreport.pdf (6.1
MB)

page 33:

% of individuals that watch (weekly reach) the following:

BBC Television = 85.3% (86.6% in 2005)
BBC1 = 79.7% (81.9% in 2005)
BBC2 = 59.1% (61.4% in 2005)
BBC3 = 11.8% (9.4% in 2005)
BBC4 = 4.5% (3.0% in 2005)
CBBC = 4.2% (3.5% in 2005)
CBeebies = 6.4% (5.8% in 2005)
BBC News 24 = 5.4% (4.2% in 2005)
BBC Parliament = 0.2% (0.2% in 2005)

So 15% of people don't watch BBC TV, which is around 1 in 6 people.


Have the BBC have released previous years figures (and do you know a
link to them?) since by themselves the figures are interesting but not
very useful for extropolation purposes. I also feel, when discussing
the longterm future of the license fee, the % of households would
perhaps be more useful.

Steve

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

[ re the TVL ]


That is a weak argument when we are talking about under 50 pence
a
day for something that no one is forced to own.


People are forced to pay it if they want to watch TV, but an
increasing
number of people do not watch BBC TV, which is the point.


Err, logic error (as you would say)....

They are only forced to pay it if they want to own (an installed)
television, no one is forced to own a television, no one is forced to
have an unused television installed.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:

It may well be patronising. I know families who reject the concept of
education (see below) and, for the good of society, I support a
system that undermines their 'values'.

I'll accept that some people don't value good broadcasting - just as
there are some people who don't value education - but it's still a
good idea to make both good broadcasting and good education
available to all at the cost of all.

How can you place light entertainment, especially the mild pap
produced by the BBC, at the same level as education? Why should
Eatenders be made available at the cost to all?

It's part of a package that cannot be sustained without such
inclusions. I do argue that the BBC should reduce such content but
know that it's essential that a good proportion remains. It's a
dynamic situation.


Like this on BBC1 tonight you mean:

7pm Big Cat Week (didn't they have one last year, and the year before that,
and the year before that ... ?)

7.30pm Eastenders

8pm Real Nonsense with Fiona Bruce

8.30pm DIY SOS (top quality public service broadcasting at its best)

9-10pm Only Another Celebathon This Time On Horses



I'll also accept that there are people who can't see good value
because they only count a very small proportion of the benefit and
don't understand the results of withdrawing that benefit.

But I can see good value. So can you, and doesn't the value improve
when it's subsidised by other people?

That sounds like you want to be a parasitic freeloader.


Why does everybody that opposes the licence fee become a freeloader in your
eyes? People wouldn't be able to freeload as they do now if the BBC TV
channels were encrypted and you had to pay for a subscription.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Pyriform wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
It's a lot of money wasted if you don't watch BBC TV or watch so
little that you wouldn't want to pay the £130 (going up to £180
over the next few years).

Some people won't pay their way for anything if they can get out of
it. They're freeloading parasites on the rest of us so their vote on
the matter is not one to seriously consider.


I'm glad you now support the cause for a subscription-funded BBC,
where TV channels are encrypted to stop the current very high number
of freeloaders.

So not only do you wish us to shell out more money for a reduced
service,


Who said anything about a reduced service? How the hell do you know what
they'll offer? If anything I could see them launching new channels if they
weren't publicly funded, because it's only the commercial sector that stops
them doing a lot of the things it would like to do.


you also want us to replace all our receiving apparatus with
devices which support conditional access?

Oh, whoopee do!


A £30 new set-top box, what a nightmare.


Perhaps you should stick to slagging off DAB.


I can multitask. ;-)


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

ChrisM wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Jerry:::: wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
ChrisM wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in
message ...
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:49:49 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:


five out of six is a very respectable viewing rate.


Hardly, considering this is a universal tax on watching TV.


Don't usually get involved in this debate, as it is clear that
both sides have clear and very fixed thoughts on the subject, and
no amount of arguing is going to get anyone to change their mind,
Just wanted to stick my 2p worth in anyway though, and will
probably live to regret it...
Why such a fuss about the licence fee? We are talking about £2.50
a week here, that's a pint of lager, or 10 fags or few of cups of
coffee in a cafe(one cup of it's Starbucks!) A WEEK. Not really
very much is it!


It's a lot of money wasted if you don't watch BBC TV or watch so
little that you wouldn't want to pay the £130 (going up to £180
over the next few years).


That is a weak argument when we are talking about under 50 pence a
day for something that no one is forced to own.


People are forced to pay it if they want to watch TV, but an
increasing number of people do not watch BBC TV, which is the point.


I'm not disputing what you're saying, and I know you have shown some
statistics to back it up, but I find it quite hard to believe that
anyone who has a television, NEVER watches BBC channels.


To turn that round, should these people that watch BBC channels once or
twice per year be made to pay £130?

And think about all the people that watch very little BBC TV, but are
included in the 85%. Again, they aren't getting value for money.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Adrian A wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Ian wrote:
In message , DAB sounds
worse than FM writes
From the BBC Annual Report:

http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annrep...nualreport.pdf
(6.1 MB)

page 33:

% of individuals that watch (weekly reach) the following:

BBC Television = 85.3% (86.6% in 2005)
BBC1 = 79.7% (81.9% in 2005)
BBC2 = 59.1% (61.4% in 2005)
BBC3 = 11.8% (9.4% in 2005)
BBC4 = 4.5% (3.0% in 2005)
CBBC = 4.2% (3.5% in 2005)
CBeebies = 6.4% (5.8% in 2005)
BBC News 24 = 5.4% (4.2% in 2005)
BBC Parliament = 0.2% (0.2% in 2005)

So 15% of people don't watch BBC TV, which is around 1 in 6 people.

And percentage reach for BBC1 and BBC2 has reduced by 2.2% and 2.3%
respectively.

Methinks that at this rate of decline, the BBC licence fee will
*definitely* be unsustainable by the next Charter renewal period in
10 years' time, because there will be far too many people that just
never watch the BBC, which I think is by far the strongest argument
against there being a universal licence fee/tax.




I wonder how many of the 15% would scream blue murder if they didn't
get BBC channels.


Considering that they don't watch BBC TV I'm sure they'd much prefer
to be given £180 (as it will be then + a load of inflation).

What people _say_ they do or don't do and the reality are very often
different.


So you're saying that people that don't watch BBC TV would like to pay £180
for the pleasure of not watching BBC TV?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...
snip most of your ignorant anti BBC clap-trap

- the BBC is a political organisation. This does not mean that it
necessarily supports one or the other main parties (though I have
some
Conservative-voting friends who believe that it does) but it does
have a
political (small p) viewpoint. I do not share the BBC's politics
and do not
wish to contribute to their promotion ;

Your having a laugh! The BBC is apolitical, although it does question
what is done in our names - as all good journalists should, and is
why those who work for BSkyB and News International are so
discredited as they have to tow the editorial line that the owner
wants - which is often to agree un-questioningly.

In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:
I cannot list anything of good value from the BBC, There are one or two
programmes I watch

TV is only part of it - the fact that you answer in this way suggests that you
are doing what I suggested, and count the total cost of the BBC against just
one aspect of its output. Even at that it's extremely good value of course.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
It was merely a comment on the unsustainability of the BBC licence
fee - I will continue to watch BBC TV when it becomes a subscription
service.

No you won't. At that stage whatever might be calling itself 'BBC'
will no longer have any real similarity to the BBC.

Stop being overdramatic you silly billy - we're only talking about changing
the way it's funded from taxation to subscription, it's not the end of the
world, and the BBC will remain to be a strong broadcaster.

I'd suggest that you're lacking good sense. To move in the way described would
destroy the BBC in its present format. That, of course, is exactly the
intention of those who keep bring up the idea that you are repeating - but the
original instigators are doing it for (massive) additional profit and power.
That you don't see the connection (or are lying to hide it) means that your
words have to be considered with care. If anything I am massively
un-dramatising the case.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Stewart Smith wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:
Where are the programmes for people who like in-depth programmes
about anything?
On BBC 4 usually...


Very few and very far between...


Maybe, but the recent "Century that made us" season has been excellent
stuff. Apart from docs, BBC4 also has Never Mind the Fullstops which
has been very entertaining and they've just started showing the b&w
Avengers with Mrs. Peel. Catsuitastic! Seriously though, there's
usually at least a couple of things on there every week that I watch.

Stewart