1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

At 21:21:47 on 12/07/2006, Arfur Million delighted uk.tech.digital-tv
by announcing:

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

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

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message
om...
snip

At least you are paying for a car tax disk in order to use a
car.
You
don't have to buy a car tax disk in order to travel by bus. But
you
do
have to buy a TV licence, which funds the BBC, even if you only
want to
watch other broadcasters' programmes.


One has to buy VED just to keep a vehicle on the public road,
irrespective of it's use.


But one doesn't need it if one drives only on private roads.


Nor do you need a licence (heck you don't even need to be the legal
age), or insurance - although you would be mad to do so... What was
your point exactly?

You keep on asking that. My point was that it is perfectly OK to
drive a car only on private roads without paying for VED - whereas it
is illegal to view only commercial channels without having a TV
licence.

But it is perfectly fine to use a TV to watch pre-recorded material,
for instance.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article
ews.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
At least you are paying for a car tax disk in order to use a
car.
You
don't have to buy a car tax disk in order to travel by bus. But
you
do
have to buy a TV licence, which funds the BBC, even if you only
want to
watch other broadcasters' programmes.


One has to buy VED just to keep a vehicle on the public road,
irrespective of it's use.

Quite true, but it is still a kind of "use" of the car rather than
something else. The point I was trying to make was that the car tax
actually goes to fund the use of the thing you are paying for,
whereas
if you want to watch any non-BBC television broadcasts you are
legally
required to pay for something other than what you use.


What about all those who never (for example) use the Motorway
network, they are also paying for something that they don't use?

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

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

[ re the TVL and the BBC ]

snip

Strange how so many people are willing to pay money - on top of the
licence
fee - for alternatives.

Mainly because a certain broadcaster has bought up all the main
sporting events and films,

and packaged them in a way that people want, rather than the way the BBC did
the job.

it could almost be classed as a distress
purchase if one accepts (which I don't) that TV is an essential
service.

If it isn't an essential service, why force all TV watchers to pay for the
BBC?

Also IIRC one needs a basic subscription package before one
can subscribe to either the sports and / or film package, which masks
the true popularity of the base subscription package, as I believe
that it isn't possible to subscribe to either sports or films whilst
just having a FTV card.

Yep, and people are still prepared to pay for this in order to give
themselves an alternative to the BBC (which they've already paid for).


snip

At the moment I believe that the BBC is sleepwalking into oblivion,
and that
subscription could offer them a way out, if they are able to grasp
the
opportunity.

If you believe that ITV must be about to jump off the cliff face
whilst asleep then! ITV are loosing views hand over fist.

I wasn't referring so much to the BBC completely losing their ratings. What
I see happening is that the BBC is looking more and more like the other
channels, and as time goes on and the channels proliferate more people will
ask themselves why they should be paying a licence fee. I can also see them
asking why pay for a BBC at all, if it is indistinguishable from the other
channels. If the BBC moves to subscription, they can either choose to
continue to compete with the commercial channels for the popular ratings -
or to go for a niche and/or PSB broadcasting which would get enough money to
cover its cost. I believe that that would be possible - and if they achieved
it then I for one would subscribe.

Subscription might just save ITV, but it would kill the BBC - aka
PSB - television service. But then that you suit companies like
BSkyB...


You, like so many pro-licencists, are obsessed with Sky.


And yet 1 in 6 people are unable to make any sort of a list that
stretches
to 15 minutes viewing a week.



Put that another way, five out of six people can....



Make a list that stretches to 15 minutes viewing a week. Very impressive.

Regards,
Arfur

"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 21:21:47 on 12/07/2006, Arfur Million delighted uk.tech.digital-tv
by announcing:

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

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

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message
om...
snip

At least you are paying for a car tax disk in order to use a
car.
You
don't have to buy a car tax disk in order to travel by bus. But
you
do
have to buy a TV licence, which funds the BBC, even if you only
want to
watch other broadcasters' programmes.


One has to buy VED just to keep a vehicle on the public road,
irrespective of it's use.


But one doesn't need it if one drives only on private roads.


Nor do you need a licence (heck you don't even need to be the legal
age), or insurance - although you would be mad to do so... What was
your point exactly?

You keep on asking that. My point was that it is perfectly OK to
drive a car only on private roads without paying for VED - whereas it
is illegal to view only commercial channels without having a TV
licence.

But it is perfectly fine to use a TV to watch pre-recorded material,
for instance.

Yes, I did that for a number of years.

Regards,
Arfur

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

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article
ews.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
At least you are paying for a car tax disk in order to use a
car.
You
don't have to buy a car tax disk in order to travel by bus. But
you
do
have to buy a TV licence, which funds the BBC, even if you only
want to
watch other broadcasters' programmes.


One has to buy VED just to keep a vehicle on the public road,
irrespective of it's use.

Quite true, but it is still a kind of "use" of the car rather than
something else. The point I was trying to make was that the car tax
actually goes to fund the use of the thing you are paying for,
whereas
if you want to watch any non-BBC television broadcasts you are
legally
required to pay for something other than what you use.


What about all those who never (for example) use the Motorway
network, they are also paying for something that they don't use?


They do benefit from the movement of goods that the motorways provide even
if they don't go on the motorways themselves. Good transportation is an
essential requirement for any country, and it is right that it is paid for
with public money. This is not to say that our current system of taxation is
honed to perfection, but that is no excuse for having a tax which is
designed to be disproportionate and provides a trivial service.

Regards,
Arfur

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...
snip

You keep on asking that. My point was that it is perfectly OK to
drive a car
only on private roads without paying for VED - whereas it is
illegal to view
only commercial channels without having a TV licence.


It's perfectly legal to watch commercial DVD's without a TVL though.

"Alex" wrote in message
...
snip

But it is perfectly fine to use a TV to watch pre-recorded
material,
for instance.

Not if it's a time-shift recording from broadcast television though.

At 21:40:55 on 12/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
snip

But it is perfectly fine to use a TV to watch pre-recorded
material,
for instance.

Not if it's a time-shift recording from broadcast television though.

Whatever the source. The recording device will need to have been
covered by a licence, and there may or may not be copyright issues, but
those are seperate matters.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Alex" wrote in message
...
snip

But it is perfectly fine to use a TV to watch pre-recorded material,
for instance.

Not if it's a time-shift recording from broadcast television though.

The self-confessed criminal Hercule ******** ( I hope I got that right) who
sometimes posts here had convinced himself that the time-shifting defence
would stand up in a court of law. I'm still looking forward to reading about
it.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfur Million
wrote:
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfur Million
wrote:
"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.

No it didn't. The radio and TV broadcasts were a small part of the OU
courses and, although they played an excellent role in recruiting
students (and pacing active students), they did very little in
educating
non-students.

So it did work for the OU, then - in the terms of reference for which
they
were created, if not the terms of reference that you have invented for
your
last post.

It didn't work in the terms discussed in this thread and it didn't work as
originally envisioned prior to the OU being formed.

Yes, but you had deliberately withheld what your terms in this thread were.


I, as a non-OU student, also found many of the programmes entertaining
and
informative and I know that other people did too.

Great. When we discussed it within the OU - based on feedback from
students
and non-students - the view at that time seemed to be that your experience
was
rare and there would be little impact on programmes being moved from
broadcast
to tape - except as discussed below. I argued that it would make sense to
use
OU programmes, together with low cost notes for background and further
reading
for those who wanted to follow a 'light route'. Many programmes were
thought
to make little sense without the other learning materials to support them.

Ironically as broadcasts from the OU have become less irksome to the
broadcasting of more general programmes - in the early days there was
tension between the need to air OU programmes on BBC2 at almost social
hours and the need to broadcast non-OU programmes at the same time - a
number of OU-sourced programmes have been presented on prime-time. So
while you're wrong to say that it worked for the OU

But you have just said that "they played an excellent role in recruiting
students (and pacing active students)", so you agree that they did work.

In that way they did - though note that I was arguing against the route
the
University and the OU wanted to take, faced with a strong demand for
non-OU
use of the BBC2 time.

Don't tell me that the BBC didn't want to show educational programmes that
would appeal to minority interests? How surprising that isn't.


you may be right to suggest that it is now starting to work from the
OU.
It's taken a long time to get there though - ISTR the idea surfacing
when
I chaired the OU's NW Regional Committee, back in the early 80s.

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.

By all means question the statement - but do so from a position of
authority. Do state your qualifications to make such criticism *and*
watch the programme whilst observing its target audience.

There you go again. The question I posed was who decides that they work
and
by what criteria? Exactly what qualifications do you think I need to pose
such a question? There is a number of issues being considered here,
including:

You need to have an understanding of child development and learning and
the
unfulfilled needs of children at the next stage of development.

Something I studied at uni, as it happens. Only fairly briefly though, it
was the artsy part of my science degree but I did find it interesting. But
no-one would need to understand that subject in depth, to understand by what
criteria great programming like Big Cook, Little Cook are being measured,
and who decides if they work or not, and who pays for them.


- is the quality of the programmes high? - are they educational? - should
they be paid for out of public funding? - if so, is the licence fee the
appropriate way to do this?
Yes.

and you posts are muddling through the issues without any clarity of
thought. Are you saying that just because a BBC programme is educational,
that it is right for it to be paid out of the licence fee? Why not the
education budget? Why not subscription? After all, if there is a book
which
is fun; promotes parent-child interaction; informs/educates/entertains
all
at once; promotes activity; promotes discussion and teaches how to cook
then it will either be a school text book or it will have to be bought by
the parents. Should TV be so different? I am happy to contribute to an
education budget that goes through a proper accountable education
process;
but am not happy to contribute to things just because someone at the BBC
has labelled them "educational" where their content has been decided on
by
the opaque cabalistic processes that occur within the BBC.

Broadcast TV in the UK is not the commodity it is elsewhere. That's its
strength. You want to destroy its unique nature.

It is utter crap. It is not always so. I want to see it changed for the
better, or not have to contribute towards it.


It is also not clear why such educational programmes be made by the same
people who make other types of programmes. You seem to be saying that it
is
necessary in order to make it a seamless experience, and yet your prime
example is on a separate channel anyway, which seams rather
muddle-headed.
There is no reason that this channel shouldn't be made subscription as
part
of a separate package.

CBeebies wouldn't work in isolation. It works as part of the BBC. Other
bits
of the BBC work as part of the BBC. What you get you get because the whole
works and wouldn't work in isolation.

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.

That is where you are so far behind development that it's rather
frightening that you're choosing to comment. TV (plonked in front of)
is
clearly bad but

So there is some evidence to suggest that watching *less* telly will
improve people's education. Or are you going to force people to watch
what
you decide is good for them

You make the good bits highly entertaining and without the pressure and
interruption of commercial interests.

.. . . and people will naturally flock to it? Like they are doing now.


good children's TV will encourage child and carer joint participation
and
lead on to subsequent (not in front of the TV) activity, discussion,
and
further learning. That's why I mentioned those particular children's
programmes in that list.

No doubt you have some evidence to back this up, but you think that I am
too poorly qualified to ask what that evidence is.

Possibly.
But the main failing in your qualification is in not sampling and
analysing
the product.


Alas, I fear that over the past couple of months (since returning to TV) I
have sampled far too much of the BBC, and the other terrestrial channels, in
my quest to find good quality TV programmes - by that I don't mean just
stuff I like, but stuff I would like to support. I have found precious
little. The products bear little analysing. My last hope is that there is
something hiding in digital channels that I like. Soon I will have the
technology to investigate this. I will let you know if I find anything good.

Regards,
Arfur