BBC may shut some digital services after switchover.

Martin Jay wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:42:53 +0000, johnwright ""john\"@no spam
here.com" wrote:

Consider that the licence fee tends to be less per month than just about
the cheapest subscription to Sky TV. For which you get some channels all
with adverts.

Peoples' tastes have changed.

Many used to complain about adverts, too many US imports and repeats
on TV.

People now pay--specifically for US imports and repeats--to watch such
things.

Taste is largely irrelevant. Its the proportion of what comes out of the
viewers pocket and what comes from advertisers that in the context of
Sky has changed.

The original statement that made me post was that the licence fee was
massive. I was simply attempting to put it into context. I pay licence
fee monthly by direct debit so I can see how little it costs compared to
Sky (which in actual fact I sacked since their costs to me were going up
faster than what I earned. Even when I sacked them I was paying them
twice as much as I was paying in licence fee. Most people pay a lot more
- like the chap I knew who bought everything who was paying nearly £50
per month. So in two and a bit months he would be paying the same as the
licence fee.

--

I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore

?John Wright

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:42:53 +0000, johnwright ""john\"@no spam
here.com" wrote:

Consider that the licence fee tends to be less per month than just about
the cheapest subscription to Sky TV. For which you get some channels all
with adverts.

Not really fair to compare the BBC's 8 TV channels against the
hundreds of channels on Sky, though.

--

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:42:53 +0000, johnwright ""john\"@no spam
here.com" wrote:

Consider that the licence fee tends to be less per month than just about
the cheapest subscription to Sky TV. For which you get some channels all
with adverts.

Not really fair to compare the BBC's 8 TV channels against the
hundreds of channels on Sky, though.

Indeed, it takes only a minute or so to step through the Beeb's TV channels
and discover nothing worth watching, with Sky you can waste an entire evening
doing so.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:49:04 GMT, Zero Tolerance wrote:

Consider that the licence fee tends to be less per month than just

about the cheapest subscription to Sky TV. For which you get some
channels all with adverts.

Not really fair to compare the BBC's 8 TV channels against the
hundreds of channels on Sky, though.

How many of those "hundreds of channels" do Sky actually produce the
orginal output themselves rather than just provide bandwidth, resell
or transmit repeats. Sky 1 & 2, Sky Sports 1 - 3, Sky Sports News?
not sure if that is FTV as Sky 3 or Sky News are.

Oh and don't forget the licence fee also funds radio. National,
digital only and local radio. I bet there are quite a number of
people very happy that Radio Cumbria exists (again about the third
time in 8 years, F&M, Carlisle Floods and the recent floods).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:26:09 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

it takes only a minute or so to step through the Beeb's TV channels
and discover nothing worth watching, with Sky you can waste an entire evening
doing so.

LOL. How true!

--
Z

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:51:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:49:04 GMT, Zero Tolerance wrote:

Consider that the licence fee tends to be less per month than just

about the cheapest subscription to Sky TV. For which you get some
channels all with adverts.

Not really fair to compare the BBC's 8 TV channels against the
hundreds of channels on Sky, though.

How many of those "hundreds of channels" do Sky actually produce the
orginal output themselves rather than just provide bandwidth, resell
or transmit repeats. Sky 1 & 2, Sky Sports 1 - 3, Sky Sports News?
not sure if that is FTV as Sky 3 or Sky News are.

Oh and don't forget the licence fee also funds radio. National,
digital only and local radio. I bet there are quite a number of
people very happy that Radio Cumbria exists (again about the third
time in 8 years, F&M, Carlisle Floods and the recent floods).

And the Grayrigg train derailment (Feb 2007) mainly for its curiosity
value.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Hmm, well, I know a heck of a lot of elderly folk sfor whom loss of bbc 7
would be a blow. They have no computer to use the on demand system, which
is muted to replace it, and bought dab mainly for this service. It is now
on Freeview of course, which has also helped get it accepted as a very
nice trip down memory lane.
I do not think most would get a computer simply to try to get shows, they
want it served up as they do now.




on the rare occasion i've heard radio 7, i've got the distinct impression i
was actually listening to an old tv show with audio only - is it my
imagination or is that actually what they do?




--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:41:35 -0000, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
m...
Hmm, well, I know a heck of a lot of elderly folk sfor whom loss of bbc 7
would be a blow. They have no computer to use the on demand system, which
is muted to replace it, and bought dab mainly for this service. It is now
on Freeview of course, which has also helped get it accepted as a very
nice trip down memory lane.
I do not think most would get a computer simply to try to get shows, they
want it served up as they do now.




on the rare occasion i've heard radio 7, i've got the distinct impression i
was actually listening to an old tv show with audio only - is it my
imagination or is that actually what they do?

Not as far as I know. The style is that of radio before TV. The style
persisted after TV became what it is today. There were often studio
audiences for radio comedy shows so the performers were to some extent
performing to that audience as much as to the listeners.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:10:17 +0000, johnwright ""john\"@no spam
here.com" wrote:
Martin Jay wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:42:53 +0000, johnwright ""john\"@no spam
here.com" wrote:

Consider that the licence fee tends to be less per month than just about
the cheapest subscription to Sky TV. For which you get some channels all
with adverts.

Peoples' tastes have changed.

Many used to complain about adverts, too many US imports and repeats
on TV.

People now pay--specifically for US imports and repeats--to watch such
things.

Taste is largely irrelevant. Its the proportion of what comes out of the
viewers pocket and what comes from advertisers that in the context of
Sky has changed.

If what viewers want hasn't changed, we have to accept that before
subscription TV came along viewers weren't being given what they
wanted.

Subscription TV is largely repeats and US programming, so, presumably,
that's what people want. As you mention, they're certainly willing to
pay a premium for it.
--
Martin Jay

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:41:35 -0000, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:


on the rare occasion i've heard radio 7, i've got the distinct impression
i
was actually listening to an old tv show with audio only - is it my
imagination or is that actually what they do?

Not as far as I know. The style is that of radio before TV. The style
persisted after TV became what it is today. There were often studio
audiences for radio comedy shows so the performers were to some extent
performing to that audience as much as to the listeners.





in this case it was ever decreasing circles - was that ever a radio show?



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!