1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

Pyriform wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I do not doubt that you fail to make sense of anything that requires
knowledge of business and microeconomics.

But that's your problem.

It is true that my academic background is in proper science, rather than
dismal science - but I find it equips me to sniff out bull**** wherever it
is being excreted. And you are full of it!

There you have it... a post from someone who imagines that every shop price
is made up of a myriad of tiny but identifiable bits that relate to every
cost the manufacturer and distributor ever incurred.

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

Have you ever watched PBS in the US? That should be a warning not to meddle.

- I do not believe that it provides good value for money. I would much
rather not pay the fee, and not view or listen to any of the BBC's output.
I would get far more pleasure from an extra pint of beer every week (BTW,
you can get it much cheaper than that) ;

I'd be very pleased to have a BBC multiplex jammer fitted. Even better if it
meant I didn't have to pay the idiots for their overdogged, overmarketed
****e "service". It seems anything I might rarely want to watch on "BBC
FOUR" is covered by a dog, so I never watch anything on this channel. Never
even bother looking. And it's no more a "digital channel" than any other of
the other few are that I watch on freeview.

All broadcasters: USE THE BLOODY EPG instead of spoiling the picture with a
permanent DOG.
Any crap on the screen for more than 4 seconds is unacceptable to me.

And *if* it's true that less people are avoiding paying the licence fee,
maybe it's comparable to stating that nobody (still alive) wanted Sadam or
Adolf to leave power :-)

I can't believe the BBC will be getting a full-term charter renewal, given
their quality of service.

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)

I wonder how long the channel has to be shown for to be considered
"watched"? :-)

Does anyone really watch BBC FOUR (with DOG)?

Somebody wrote:
% 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.



That's probably because a) they are illegals and b) they don't speak
English.

The statistics are meaningless.
--
huLLy

In article .com, Arfur
Million wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article om, Arfur
Million wrote:
It's up to those of us with a modicum of intelligence and foresight
to point out what we get for our money and the fact that we would
lose it.

Which you haven't done, in this thread at least - you have just
asserted that you do find it good value for money.

Someone pointed out that half a dozen programmes on BBC 1 tonight weren't
worth the money. I gave a much longer list (but very small extract) from
today's offering from the BBC and no-one has suggested that they don't
give a small indication of the worth of the organisation. Apparently you
seek to simply ignore any evidence against your case.

I had missed that depressing list, to be honest. I went for a quick kip and
the thread size doubled! Yes, I would say that this list is typical of the
worth of the organisation, which is near-zero as far as I'm concerned. The
"Big Cat Week" is typical of the BBC's superficial and popular approach to
naitcher (although wildlife programmes are generally at the better end of
science output), their cricket coverage is second-to-everyone and the rest
is quite missable, or is available in other outlets. I notice that you even
include a cookery programme - is this what the licence fee is for? I'm
going out now, I haven't set the VCR for anything. Enjoy your evening's
viewing.

Great at criticising thngs you don't understand aren't you? Clearly your
parents brought you up on imported USA crap - and probably didn't even let you
watch the one decent import (Sesame Street). Deprived then and making us
suffer for it now...

--
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 in message
...
snip


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.


But the 'value for money' is available - they just choose not to
watch, that is not a fault of the funding system.

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

What have I told you about being a silly billy?


What have I told you about talking to yourself?!

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
So although compared with former years I don't think the BBC is doing a very
good job with the licence fee, they could certainly be doing worse.

And all our energy should be reserved for getting the BBC to improve its
output and not fighting yet another war with yet more people who have
swallowed the Murdoch pack of lies.

--
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 in message
...
snip

Clearly you cannot read

Talking about yourself again...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 15:36:33 on 10/07/2006, DAB sounds worse than FM delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by announcing:

Come on then, how many new set-top boxes would you need? Do you
think
it might be possible to save up for all the new equipment between
now
and 2016? If not, have you considered that you need to get a new
job?

Perhaps you should ask for a ?180 p.a. payrise.

I don't think the DWP will pay that much, they might tell him to find
a job though - after all he is meant to have three degrees in
broadcasting subjects.....