1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

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

snip meaningless quoted percentages


Meaningless?

Yes, because we don't know what the over-all viewing figures are.


I think it's 97%?


snip anti BBC troll


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.


So you are anti BBC (PSB) then,


No I'm not. I'm pro-BBC-funded-by-subscription, and I'm definitely
pro-PSB.


than you for confirming that you are
a clueless w*nker who only wants to watch crap and porn.


Au contraire ma cheri, I want more public service broadcasting that
can only be provided once the link between reach / viewing figures
and the TV tax has been broken.


The day that
the BBC becomes a commercial / subscription broadcaster will be the
day that British TV finally goes down the pan, were the only thing
that matter is ratings figures or advertising revenue,


That couldn't be more wrong, because they can be far more risky when
they're subscription-based because they won't have the press quoting
**** viewing figures at them left, right and centre.


Nothing left to comment on!


Only because you don't have a brain.


Far from it, but what can one say in reply to a brainless OP...


Seeing as, by general consensus, you're one of the thickest posters
on the whole of Usenet, you don't have room to talk about being
brainless...

I'm glad there's something we agree on.
--
Adrian

Arfur Million wrote:
charles wrote:
In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:

[Snip]

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?

27 years ago, I attended a press conference to mark the first year
of Radio Scotland. One of the reporters asked "Radio Scotland -
there's a bit of this and a bit of that - who are you aiming the
programmes at?"

The reply was " We are publicly funded. Who you suggest we leave
out?".

That is still relevant today Once the BBC ceases to make programmes
for everybody, its justification to exist on public money ceases,
too.


Where are the programmes for people who like in-depth programmes about
anything? BBC science documentaries are particularly appalling, they
always focus on the personalities, and usually make the programme as
some sort of detective story, adding in a few pointless graphics on
the
way (eg Big Ben clockface whenever the word "time" is mentioned).
There
was a particularly dreadful example of this the other day, a programme
about a major debate Stephen Hawking has had about black holes.
Science
it wasn't. The only decent science programmes have been from the OU
(are they still being broadcast?). Heaven knows when they will include
a programme with a methematical equation and attempt to explain what
it actually means. Travel programmes rarely attempt to scratch the
surface
of other countries' culture. In fact there is hardly anything that is
allowed to be treated at more than a superficial level. Take QI, for
example - an interesting programme with a knowledgeable and
entertaining host that has to be dumbed down by making it game where
the stupid guests (or, rather, intelligent people pretending to be
stupid) can glorify in getting the answers wrong. Yuk.

Is your answer intended to show why Eastenders should be publicly
funded? It is possible that the people who like Eastenders may like
something else as well - they are not excluded just because Eastenders
is not available. That sort of programme is available on other
channels, in spades.

Regards,
Arfur

You must watch the BBC a great deal to be able to quote all these examples.
--
Adrian

John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com, Arfur
Million wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Arfur Million
wrote:
I can only speak for myself, as someone who opposes the licence fee.

Do you value good broadcasting and the best value for money available
anywhere? If the answer is yes then you support the BBC - or your
thinking is wonky.

That's rather patronising. Have you considered that my tastes are different
from yours?

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'.

You've lost me, why are you now talking about education when I was
saying that your statement " Do you value good broadcasting and the
best value for money available anywhere? If the answer is yes then you
support the BBC - or your thinking is wonky" is patronising?

I most certainly do support the concept of education, and a good
publicly funded one at that.


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.

What is in the rest of the package that is so good that it survives
such dilution?


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. If that were so you
destroy all chance of being taken seriously.
If you see good value could you list what we get from the BBC? I doubt that
I'll remember everything but bet I can add to your list.


You misunderstand me. I'm saying that I do recognise what is good value
for me, and that the BBC isn't it - that is why I have said elsewhere
in this thread that I would much rather not pay the fee and not
watch/listen to any of the BBC's output. I was implying that people who
like the BBC's output know good value when they see it, and approve of
the subsidy that the licence fee represents; I was far too polite to
use the term "parasitic freeloader".

I cannot list anything of good value from the BBC, There are one or two
programmes I watch, they are light entertainment and I wouldn't make a
special effort for them. I can think of precious little over the past
15 years that I would treasure, eg to the extent of buying it on DVD or
taping it when it's repeated. I have a theory that most of the
pro-licencists are over 30, who can remember a time when the BBC did
produce some good programmes (I know it is easy to look back with
rose-tinted glasses, there has always been a lot of mild pap around,
but they did make some decent stuff too).

Regards,
Arfur

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

Oh, whoopee do!

Perhaps you should stick to slagging off DAB.

"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. Ok, so they might not
watch BBC on a regular basis, but NEVER EVER watch a single BBC programme?
For example, if someone asked me if I watch SkyOne, my first answer would
probably be no, but then thinking about it, I do watch the occasional
Simpsons episode, and if I thought a bit harder, I've probably watched some
other stuff on it too...

Do those figures include people that don't have a TV or are they only % of
people that do actually watch it?

charles wrote:

The reply was " We are publicly funded. Who you suggest we leave
out?".

That is still relevant today Once the BBC ceases to make programmes
for everybody, its justification to exist on public money ceases, too.


And that's why BBC1 is showing the following tonight:

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

Excluding the fact that a lot of people are addicted to their soaps, the
rest is just gash.



--
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

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
snip

Logic error: BBC will still exist and make programmes, but it will
be
subscription-funded.


No it won't, the BBC is a PSB service, they make what people should
or need to watch, which is why (even in a dumbed down form)
programmes such as Panorama and Horizon are still made - unlike ITV's
World in Action or Disappearing World and the like. If the BBC went
over to a subscription service they would have to make only
programmes that people want to watch, the BBC will become just
another commercial station.

Arfur Million wrote:
charles wrote:
In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:

[Snip]

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?

27 years ago, I attended a press conference to mark the first year
of Radio Scotland. One of the reporters asked "Radio Scotland -
there's a bit of this and a bit of that - who are you aiming the
programmes at?"

The reply was " We are publicly funded. Who you suggest we leave
out?".

That is still relevant today Once the BBC ceases to make programmes
for everybody, its justification to exist on public money ceases,
too.


Where are the programmes for people who like in-depth programmes about
anything?


Exactly!


BBC science documentaries are particularly appalling, they
always focus on the personalities, and usually make the programme as
some sort of detective story,


Horizon has been the absolute pits hasn't it...


adding in a few pointless graphics on
the way (eg Big Ben clockface whenever the word "time" is mentioned).


Absobleedinglutely.


There was a particularly dreadful example of this the other day, a
programme about a major debate Stephen Hawking has had about black
holes. Science it wasn't. The only decent science programmes have
been from the OU (are they still being broadcast?). Heaven knows when
they will include a programme with a methematical equation and
attempt to explain what it actually means. Travel programmes rarely
attempt to scratch the surface of other countries' culture. In fact
there is hardly anything that is allowed to be treated at more than a
superficial level. Take QI, for example - an interesting programme
with a knowledgeable and entertaining host that has to be dumbed down
by making it game where the stupid guests (or, rather, intelligent
people pretending to be stupid) can glorify in getting the answers
wrong. Yuk.


I agree with all of the above, apart from QI, which I think is good.




--
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:
Arfur Million wrote:
charles wrote:
In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:

[Snip]

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?

27 years ago, I attended a press conference to mark the first year
of Radio Scotland. One of the reporters asked "Radio Scotland -
there's a bit of this and a bit of that - who are you aiming the
programmes at?"

The reply was " We are publicly funded. Who you suggest we leave
out?".

That is still relevant today Once the BBC ceases to make programmes
for everybody, its justification to exist on public money ceases,
too.


Where are the programmes for people who like in-depth programmes about
anything? BBC science documentaries are particularly appalling, they
always focus on the personalities, and usually make the programme as
some sort of detective story, adding in a few pointless graphics on
the
way (eg Big Ben clockface whenever the word "time" is mentioned).
There
was a particularly dreadful example of this the other day, a programme
about a major debate Stephen Hawking has had about black holes.
Science
it wasn't. The only decent science programmes have been from the OU
(are they still being broadcast?). Heaven knows when they will include
a programme with a methematical equation and attempt to explain what
it actually means. Travel programmes rarely attempt to scratch the
surface
of other countries' culture. In fact there is hardly anything that is
allowed to be treated at more than a superficial level. Take QI, for
example - an interesting programme with a knowledgeable and
entertaining host that has to be dumbed down by making it game where
the stupid guests (or, rather, intelligent people pretending to be
stupid) can glorify in getting the answers wrong. Yuk.

Is your answer intended to show why Eastenders should be publicly
funded? It is possible that the people who like Eastenders may like
something else as well - they are not excluded just because Eastenders
is not available. That sort of programme is available on other
channels, in spades.

Regards,
Arfur

You must watch the BBC a great deal to be able to quote all these examples.

No, just the start of a few so-called science documentaries and one or
two episodes of QI.

Regards,
Arfur

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...


--
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