1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

JNugent wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:

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.

Why haven't you x-posted this to uk.rec.cycling?

Your point being?

Oh, wait - there won't be one. I recognise the name now. You're the one who
came up with the intellectually compelling argument that advertising doesn't
cost anyone anything.

Abandon all logic, ye who enter here..

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

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.


--
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


Can't be bothered to go right through this long thread, so I apologise
if the point has been made, but the percentage watching BBC is 20% more
than those who bothered to vote at the last General Election (about
63%) - and the lot elected, of whatever colour, impose a lot more
universal taxes on all sorts of things.

Pyriform wrote:

JNugent wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
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.

Why haven't you x-posted this to uk.rec.cycling?

Your point being?

Oh, wait - there won't be one. I recognise the name now. You're the one who
came up with the intellectually compelling argument that advertising doesn't
cost anyone anything.

Abandon all logic, ye who enter here..

It certainly doesn't cost *you* anything, unless you are a businessman with
poor commercial judgement.

Apologies for using so many words you don't understand in a single sentence.

DAB sounds worse than FM 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?


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...

Agreed, just awful.



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.


Still watchable, certainly.

Regards,
Arfur

John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:
I cannot list anything of good value from the BBC, There are one or two
programmes I watch

TV is only part of it - the fact that you answer in this way suggests that you
are doing what I suggested, and count the total cost of the BBC against just
one aspect of its output. Even at that it's extremely good value of course.

TV accounts for the lion's share of the expenditure of the BBC. Radio
is too dreadful even to mention, with the exception of the very
occasional R4 programme (but there's just too much dross on R4 to wait
for the good bits). If you mean the other things that the BBC takes
upon itself to spend money on, like subsidising rugby tournaments; or
works of modern art in city centres; or buying up web domains etc then
they may well be worthy causes. But ISTM that the money for those
should be raised a different way.

Regards,
Arfur

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I'm prepared to pay more, so long as the quality of programmes improves,
which I believe it would if it was subscription-funded.

It couldn't.
The income would reduce

If this were the case, it is possible that the money could be focussed
on providing higher-quality programming (which isn't necessarily
highest cost).

because too many people would be too thick to
appreciate what they would lose until it was too late - then they would
complain about their loss but it would be too late.

More patronising nonsense.


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.

Regards,
Arfur

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
David Hearn wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

From the BBC Annual Report:

http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annrep...nualreport.pdf
(6.1 MB)

page 33:

% 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.

And percentage reach for BBC1 and BBC2 has reduced by 2.2% and 2.3%
respectively.

Methinks that at this rate of decline, the BBC licence fee will
*definitely* be unsustainable by the next Charter renewal period in 10
years' time, because there will be far too many people that just never
watch the BBC, which I think is by far the strongest argument against
there being a universal licence fee/tax.


How many of those people watch BBC TV programmes though (ie. through all
those channels which show old BBC repeats?)

That last is not a tremendously powerful argument. Firstly because the
UK-TV channels get their income from (voluntary) subscription and adverts
and secondly because they do pay the BBC for the right to show the
programmes - just like foreign TV stations do. In fact, if the argument
were taken to its logical conclusion, you'd say that all foreign viewers of
BBC programmes should pay the BBC licence fee.

But the effect of the argument is to destroy the BBC on behalf of Murdoch.
That would mean destroying all chance of today's programmes for tomorrow.

--
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

JNugent wrote:
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

From the BBC Annual Report:

http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annrep...nualreport.pdf (6..1
MB)

page 33:

% of individuals that watch (weekly reach) the following:

BBC Television = 85.3% (86.6% in 2005)


So 15% of people don't watch BBC TV, which is around 1 in 6 people.

Methinks that at this rate of decline, the BBC licence fee will
*definitely* be unsustainable by the next Charter renewal period in
10 years' time, because there will be far too many people that just
never watch the BBC, which I think is by far the strongest argument
against there being a universal licence fee/tax.



A few minor observations:

a) I'd fall into the 15% for many weeks; it means watching less than a
certain number of minutes of TV each day or week. However, it would be rare
that I don't listen to BBC Radio services (the ones which are not
commercially viable, such as Radio 3 or Radio 4), or use the BBC internet
services.

b) Channel 4 is also part-funded by the license fee. So, any "abolish the
license fee" arguments needs to include Channel 4 and its subsiduary
channels in the calculations.

Is that last bit right?

How does the TV licence fund C4?

C4 is certainly partially funded by public money - when C4 first
started it was supposed to be financially independent after a few (5?)
years but it still receives some funding. The last time I looked they
received something like £70m out of a total revenue of £700m, but my
figures are a couple of years out-of-date. The revenue from the licence
fee is something like £3.1billion.

Regards,
Arfur

JNugent wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Your point being?

Oh, wait - there won't be one. I recognise the name now. You're the
one who came up with the intellectually compelling argument that
advertising doesn't cost anyone anything.

Abandon all logic, ye who enter here..

It certainly doesn't cost *you* anything, unless you are a
businessman with poor commercial judgement.

Apologies for using so many words you don't understand in a single
sentence.

That's the problem, you see. I understand all the words you use. It's the
way you arrange them into nonsensical sentences I have trouble with.

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.

--
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