1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfur Million wrote:
His posts are a strange mixture of argument and insult.

I start off by assuming that readers are of high intelligence and
goodwill.
Finding that they are conmen intent on stealing something of great value -
and
pretending to do you a favour at the same time - means that it's likely
that
gently persuasion won't work whilst calling them for what they are might
just
do the trick.


So the person who takes his nice little subsidy from unwilling people casts
himself as the victim of stealing. Nice use of doublethink.

Regards,
Arfur

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfur Million wrote:
I think that this argument shows a real divide between those who are
pro-licence and those who are anti-licence fee people. Those, or many of
those, who support the fee think why not pay for TV out of public money,
if
it leads to better quality and more diverse programming. Many
anti-licencists (?), such as myself, do not accept that TV has a
legitimate
reason to be funded publicly, and cannot be placed on a par with critical
services such as the NHS, education or the armed forces.

Accepted as a coherent argument. And you later go on to suggest that the
bits
that are educational might be so funded.

But it wouldn't work.

Why not, it worked for the OU.


The only way that you'll get the whole thing to work is as a mix of
inform,
educate, and entertain. Indeed the best programmes - I've discussed "Big
Cook
Little Cook" do all three at once and the audience don't even notice (or
care). But the good bits work.

According to who? Mr Cartmell, Mr Million, the BBC Governers? The problem is
that there is no real accountability, no proper measurement of the effect of
programmes like Big Cook, Big Cook - but we're just supposed to cough up for
them, willy-nilly.


The trouble is (and it started this discussion) is that the BBC is
criticised
if the share of its audience falls. It has to include a big (very big)
dollop
of entertainment. Now I would argue strongly against lots of (needless)
dumbing down and for more intellectually challenging programmes. I'd like
to
see an adult equivalent of "Big Cook Little Cook" that helped us develop
an
educated citizenship with a better understanding of the world [a recent
survey
showed that 30% of a random sample of adults didn't know where leather
came
from - ie didn't appreciate that it indicated a dead animal]. You won't
get
that education by putting on educational programmes - those that need it
won't
watch it - but you do need a larger group of educated people else the
stupid
will act to cause misery for the rest of us (eg not understand why
innoculation is important, you should complete a course of anti-biotics,
Murdoch isn't a nice man who wants to give you the best TV cheap, &c).

Education through TV works when it's all properly integrated and knowing
and
understanding is given high status. You'll be moving in the wrong
direction by
trying to split up the BBC.


Despite the educational potential of TV, there is some evidence to suggest
that watching *less* telly will improve people's education. What you're
suggesting leads to criticisms of Auntie Beeb for lecturing down to us. I
think it is helpful for education to be openly seen as such, so as to avoid
the suspicion of subliminal messages.

Regards,
Arfur

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

But you are not allowed to pay for it on a weekly basis. That is
a
relevant consideration for those of us whose television needs
are
rather meagre.

Your argument doesn't add up, there was until this month TVL
saving
stamps, there will be a replacement savings card [1], there is
monthly direct debits, there is always the old coffee jar at the
back
of the airing cupboard (OK they have to pay the first year 'up
front').

But you can get the licence on a weekly basis, you can only get a
whole year
(12 month ends, to be precise) or some discount on unused quarters.
You are
describing the methods available to obtain an annual licence.

Your point being what exactly?

My main point being that for those of us with meagre television needs, it is
a relevant consideration that one is unable to get a licence on a weekly
basis. I stated this in an earlier post and you appeared to disagree with
it.

My secondary point being that it is not possible to buy an annual licence,
unless it is a renewal. The best one can do is 12 month-ends (no discount
available for the unused time.




[1] any saved value will be transferred to the new card.

snip
To be more precise, the government introduced a free licence for
anyone
who happened to live in the same household as an elderly person,
which
is not quite the same thing.

No, they introduced free TVL's for pensioners, they get a free
TVL
regardless as to who else lives in the house.


The entire household benefits from the free licence. The
younger-than-75s do
not have to pay anything.


Your point being what exactly?


My point, rather self-evidently, is that people who don't need free licences
are getting them, and hence being needlessly subsidised, as a result of the
absurd way the licence fee is implemented.

Regards,
Arfur

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
news
Java Jive wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Java Jive wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

BTW, where's the US equivalent of the BBC? Where do we buy a lot of
the best programmes on TV from?

[snip]

But you were claiming by juxtaposition that because there is no
equivalent of the BBC in the US and because the US is the source of
many of the programmes on our main channels, that there is no need
for the BBC Licence Fee to maintain the standard of Public Service
Broadcasting, but that's a complete non-sequitur.

You misinterpreted my point, which was that, IIRC,

Even you are not sure?

people were laughably
claiming that the BBC would somehow stop making programmes, or the
programmes they do make would inevitably be **** quality

Well, that makes it now a double non-sequitur ...

Firstly, as you can see from the quotes above, I didn't misinterpret what
you said (what you said may not have been what you intended to say, but
that's your problem, not mine) nor therefore what that juxtaposition
implied.

Secondly, others claiming something doesn't imply that I was claiming the
same thing.

and IIRC I gave the example of HBO, which makes good series (whether
you like them or not is immaterial if millions of people think they're
good
quality series), and HBO makes content for cable subscription services.

.... And I'm still waiting for some examples that were good enough to appear
over here (of the sort of intellectual/scientific/artistic output that I
would be prepared to pay a subscription instead of a TV Licence for, ie: not
the populist ones you give below) ...

The US sourced offerings on our main channels are all populist (and
IMO crap, but that's not the point).

I don't see how you can call some of the US drama series "populist" - some
you can, but some you can't.

AFAIAA there is *no*
non-populist PSB-style US-sourced programming on the our channels.

Six Feet Under isn't populist.

[From HBO's website] "season 5 episodes 58-63" - that sounds very populist
to me.

The Sopranos isn't populist.

[Ditto] "The Sopranos season 5" - ditto.

So, if we follow the American business model, where is PSB going to
come from?

Funded by general taxation and made free-to-air, preferably, and then the
rest of BBC TV can be subscription.

See below ...

But don't forget Rome, which was crap.

1) There have been many more 'Planet Earth's than 'Rome's
2) Rome being crap doesn't have any relevance to my original point about
joint-funded/co-produced series being the nearest I get to watching any US
output.

No, advertising increases the likelihood that you'll get lowest
common denominator ********, whereas subscription increases the
likelihood that you will watch fantastic programmes.

Looking at the current subscription alternative(s), where is your
evidence for that?

I'm actually drawing off an example in radio, because in the US
they've got subscription-based satellite digital radio systems (XM
and Sirius) which provide for every niche imaginable, whereas on an
ad-funded system the majority of the channels would never see the
light of day.

A) That's radio, we're talking TV, and ...

No, it's still applicable, because it's the "subscription model" as
opposed
to the "advertising model".

But there are many aspects of radio in the UK (and elsewhere) that are
profoundly different from TV.
1) You can drive while listening to the radio, you can't while watching TV,
so you need mobile access to it.
2) Radio in this country has not required a licence since, IIRC, the early
70s.
3) Radio in this country has been open access for so long that ...
4) No-one's radios are equipped with access modules, so to take out a
subscription in radio independently of TV would require new hardware.

If, however, you are referring to radio as part of a TV package, then it
makes more sense to talk about the TV directly, because none of the above
considerations apply, so why introduce a radio example?!

B) That's America, this is here, and the US programming
environment is very different to ours.

I'm not saying that it can't work here, but the evidence so far is
overwhelmingly that it won't,

Sky is a subscription service, and like it or not, it's very successful in
terms of the number of subscriptions and it does provide a very wide range
of channels.

Aaarrrggghhh!

Sky is probably the *main* reason why so many people in the UK rush to
defend the Licence Fee! At any rate it manifestly *fails* to provide the
sort of channels that people defending the License Fee in this thread have
been demanding.

Despite being subscription-based:
1) It produces little or no original primary output except news and sport.
2) It is riddled with advertising.
3) Virtually all its worthwhile output originated from terrestrial TV.
4) It is therefore sh*te value for money.

Name at least one, preferably several, HBO programme(s) that has/ve
been shown on British TV that those of us here might have seen and
can therefore express an opinion about.

Look at the first paragraph on he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO

Of the things listed there that I've seen anything of (I think 5), there
isn't one I would consider watching even in the absence of anything better
to watch, let alone any worth paying a subscription for.

You may not like some of these series, but they've proved to be *very*
popular with UK audiences, and they're certainly not all populist.

They may not have been populist originally, but by the time they get to
series 5 they're populist and, effectively, another soap.

But that's fine, take any of them that may be there off BBC2/4, put them on
BBC1/3, ITV, CH4, Ch5, or Sky. Then those that want to watch them can do so
there, and I can hopefully watch what I want to watch on BBC2/4.

I think it would be best to have 1 BBC TV channel devoted to true public
service broadcasting, like News, current affairs, religion etc and have
that
FTA and paid for out of general taxation, then make the rest
subscription-funded.

It might work, if it was done right, but *NOT* if it's done anything like
Sky ...

To make the whole exercise worthwhile, you'd have to rationalise the
channels, so that all the artistic/wildlife/science/history/documentary
stuff was on one channel, all the soaps (in which I include long-running
drama & comedy series) on another, all one-off drama, comedy, films on
another, all the sport on another, etc, so that people can choose the
channels they want to watch, and then charge them on a per channel basis.

Otherwise, because of the introduction of a direct rather than the current
indirect commercial element, the majority of people will probably object to
paying for programming that they don't watch even more vehemently than a
minority of people currently do about paying the Licence Fee, which would
make the whole exercise pointless.

"JNugent" wrote in message
news
michael adams wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...

michael adams wrote:


"JNugent" wrote:

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message

In that case, there was no question in your post after all.
You should have quit while you were ahead, eh?

quote

Sentences which describe a question [ i.e. are a reference to a

question

- see above ] but do not directly ask a question are called indirect
questions. They do not take a question mark.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Try taking a look in the mirror, eh loser ?

A question referred to is not a question.

It's called an "indirect question".

...and is not punctuated like a direct one.


Exactly

__________________________________________________ ____________________

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

JNugent wrote:


Where's the question?

My mistake.

There is a question there, though it is not punctuated as a question.


__________________________________________________ _____________________

Exactly.

I retracted what I had written.


No Mr Nugent.

a) You first said there was no question.

b) You next admitted that there was a question, but claimed that it
should have had a question mark.

c) Now you've admitted that indirect questions, of which this was one,
"is not punctuated like a direct one". That indeed there shouldn't be a
question mark at all.

You see Mr Nugent, b) and c) directly contradict one another.

It's been a long day Mr Nugent.

I really do think it's time Nurse gave you your cocoa, and strapped
you in for the night. Why don't you give her a call ?

You know it's for the best.



michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"DAB sounds worse than FM" BA, BSc, Phd (Bull****

wrote in message ...


Pal, I've literally got more letters after my name than letters
in my
name,
so spare me the intellectual skills bull****.'


Indeed you're possesed of such a towering intellect that the idea
of actually explaining the meaning of the terms you use on your
spam comparison website, never even occured to you.

Anyone can copy....


Doubtless you're next going to be provoked into posting what you
want
others to believe to be your IQ.

Given that you're singularly unable to convince other people of
your intellectual capabilities in any other way.
snip

He 'claims' three degrees, presumably in broadcast subjects, but has
yet to name them and who awarded them - knowing full well that his
'claims' can be checked...

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

snip

To make the whole exercise worthwhile, you'd have to rationalise
the
channels, so that all the
artistic/wildlife/science/history/documentary
stuff was on one channel, all the soaps (in which I include
long-running
drama & comedy series) on another, all one-off drama, comedy, films
on
another, all the sport on another, etc, so that people can choose
the
channels they want to watch, and then charge them on a per channel
basis.

But you know as well as I that it would never happen, for the simple
fact that if a broadcaster spreads the worthwhile content across more
than one channel they can make people subscribe to more channels and
thus pay the broadcaster even more money rather than just getting the
receiving the income from a single genre channel IYSWIM.


Otherwise, because of the introduction of a direct rather than the
current
indirect commercial element, the majority of people will probably
object to
paying for programming that they don't watch even more vehemently
than a
minority of people currently do about paying the Licence Fee, which
would
make the whole exercise pointless.


As many did with the old style Sky channel 'packages'.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
10 (or possibly11) should be plenty. And 6 (or it might be 7) of
those are compactified in a Calabi-Yau manifold, safely out of reach:


How do you mean "safely out of reach"?

You can think of these extra dimensions as additional degrees of freedom of
vibration for the strings of the theory. You won't be able to imagine them,
but the mathematics copes just fine with any number of dimensions (consider,
for example, the difficulty of constructing a graph of a function of more
than 2 variables. This is a perfectly mundane thing to want to do, but sadly
we can only conceptualise x, y and z axes, and are thus thwarted.
Nevertheless, we can work with the equations quite easily)

The extra dimensions in M-theory remain unobserved (indeed, unobservable) by
virtue of their miniscule scale. String sizes are on the order of the Planck
length, which is Very Tiny Indeed. It's about 1.6 × 10E-35 meters. That's
unimaginably smaller (~ 10E-20 times smaller) then the diameter of a proton,
which is itself unimaginably small. We cannot probe nature at that scale,
because to do so would require far more energy than any Earth-based particle
accelerator will ever be capable of achieving.

It remains to be seen whether M-theory, or any other stringy variant will
make testable predictions about physics. Unless it can be falsified, it's an
amusing mathematical diversion, rather than a proper scientific theory.

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

We pay for commercial TV *indirectly* *VIA* the advertisers,
whereas we pay
directly for a TV licence.


People pay very directly for the TV advertising that (for example)
TESSCO does, they pay every time they go through the check out, no
one ever asks if they want to contribute towards the advertising -
not even those who don't even own a television!

Your argument is that of a Straw Man, and you know it...

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"DAB sounds worse than FM" BA, BSc, Phd (Bull****
wrote in message
...


Pal, I've literally got more letters after my name than letters in
my name, so spare me the intellectual skills bull****.'


Indeed you're possesed of such a towering intellect that the idea
of actually explaining the meaning of the terms you use on your
spam comparison website, never even occured to you.

Anyone can copy....


Doubtless you're next going to be provoked into posting what you want
others to believe to be your IQ.

Given that you're singularly unable to convince other people of
your intellectual capabilities in any other way.
snip

He 'claims' three degrees, presumably in broadcast subjects,


Err, no, they're not. Elec eng, comms/DSP and general science.


but has
yet to name them and who awarded them - knowing full well that his
'claims' can be checked...


That's rich coming from you, considering that I've asked you on lots of
occasions whether you've got a degree or not and you have NEVER EVEN
ANSWERED the question!

But FYI, no, I'm not going to say which universities my degrees were awarded
from. I'll say that the general science one was from the Open University,
and the other 2 were from traditional (and good) universities.

Would you mind telling me your surname please, Jerry? And while you're
disclosing personal information, which broadcaster do you or did you work
for?

If you're not willing to disclose information, why the hell should I?


--
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