1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

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

snip

The "waste" of their time (if that's how you choose to see it) is
the price
that viewers pay for the programmes they see on commercial
channels. For
many, it's no big deal. TV commercials are sometimes said to be
better than
the programmes. That is borne out by the fact that while millions
will
instantly recognise the jingles for Esso Blue or Murray Mints (late
fifties), rather fewer would recognise the theme tunes for "the
Larkins" or
"Our House" (two popular television comedies of the period, M'Lud).

Congratulations. You are the first one from your side of things to
see that.

But the argument is about who pays for the adverts, not how effective
they are.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

That's the deal. No-one is forced to watch commercial channels.
No-one is
forced to buy the advertised products. But millions do, just the
same.

If only one could say the same for the licence fee.


Nope you've got it exactly the wrong way around.

Because of the Licence Fee, I can presently watch television
without having to watch adverts. While others can watch adverts
if they so choose to do. This is especially the case with
advertisements that interrupt programmes. Which is the big
difference from BBC trailers, which can be largely avoided
if the programmes run on schedule, and which don't actually
spoil the continuity of the programmes.

Quite possibly the idea that people such as myself are so
irritated by TV advertisements - ads that positively try to force
me to do something I don't choose to do in my own home -
that they'd rather not watch commercial TV at all - has
never ever ocurred to you ?

Indeed, I have all but given up watching F1 motor racing because of
being forced to watch (mostly) irrelivant adverts in the middle of a
live event - and thus missing some of what I wanted to watch.

snip


JN (who remembers when the licence fee was £4 (about £60 in
today's
values)
and is genuinely in two minds about the licence fee).


For 2 channels in black and white, with no breakfast, or daytime TV
to speak of, and a closedown at 11.30 or 12.00 if they were really
pushing the boat out. And looking forward to Hancock (BBC), Arthur
Haynes
(ITV*), Dixon of Dock Green on a Saturday evening (BBC), and Sunday
Night at
the London Palladium (ITV*), as the highlights of the week. Jumpers
for
goalposts, etc, etc, etc.


Hmm, some would say that was the golden era of television. Video
certainly did kill the radio star, or any other star for that
matter!...

Who really needs Breakfast television, who really needs morning kids
television were pre school kids are now just dumped in front of a TV
set rather than being allowed to play or interact with their parents
/ carers, who needs 24/7 television that encourages the 'couch
potato' problem of obese people who don't do anything to exercise the
body?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
snip

You are forced to watch commercial channels, are you?

ATM, no, but if the BBC were forced to become a comercail broadcaster
we would.

michael adams wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

And Dom's website has affiliate links on it, so why have you singled
me out?

Robinson has kill-filed me, spam-boy.


You're getting very close to that position with me as well.


Something none of the rest of you wimps has ever managed to get
him to do.


?


I also kill-filed Robinson, except he posts under slightly different
ID's, maybe from home and work.

Robinsons constant whingeing is also an easy score, so there's no
need to bother with his spamming.

...

Anyway, I've removed the links to my price comparison pages in my
sig just to show you that I don't post on Usenet in order to spam,
in case you still just don't get it even after I've tried to slowly
explain things to you.

...

You'll be pleased to know that I snipped all that without even
bothering to read it. True.


Then I think the time has come to say goodbye to Mr Adams, who is
undoubtedly one of the most unintelligent and angry people on Usenet.

*plonk*



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

michael adams wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

If you wanted to make your comprison page in any way useful you
should consider the following question.

Given that people don't know much about them, what are the features
users might find most useful, and which boxes include those features.

So first off list all the features, and what they can do.

One useful feature - an LED display on the set top box which displays
the channel number. It's not 'til after you've bought one that you
realise this can prove useful in certain situations.

I stand to be corrected but your guide makes no mention of such a
feature and which boxes have it. Some have dark panels, but that may
merely be the design.


http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr...o_IDL3000T.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr...max_F2FoxT.php


The Tesco box features both now and next for the selected channel,
plus a guide featuring the next five(?) programmes for all
channnels which can be scrolled through on a menu. With a detailed
programme description at the foot of the page. Apparently
there are weekly guides on some boxes as well. No mention is
made of all these specific possibilities on your site - just
vague mentions. Again totally unsatisfactory IMO.


I do mention whether a set-top box has Now & Next or a 7/8-day EPG, and
seeing as almost all set-top boxes have one or the other, you didn't exactly
look very hard on the page did you?

Anyway, I've just killfiled you a minute ago because you're such an
imbecile, so tatty bye, you imbecile.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

michael adams wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

Anyway, I've removed the links to my price comparison pages in my
sig just to show you that I don't post on Usenet in order to spam,
in case you still just don't get it even after I've tried to slowly
explain things to you.

...

You'll be pleased to know that I snipped all that without even
bothering to read it. True.


In fact, I've decided to reinstate my sig just to **** you off. But as
you're in my killfile, I won't be able to see your rants. Talk to the hand,
sucker.


--
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

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

"JNugent" wrote:

instead.

That's pretty fancy snipping.

You can be a very imaginative chap, can't you? Ask the DWP whether basic
benefits take TV licences into account.

Presumably basic benefits don't take cigarettes into account either.

Not likely, given that 40 a day (not unusual, I understand) costs
something
rather more than basic weekly benefit. But you never know; perhaps the
government simply sees it as an easy way to claw benefits back - because
it's certainly that.

So are you claiming that nobody on basic benefits smokes cigarettes
either? Or drinks alcohol?

Not at all. Just that weekly basic benefits (at less than £60, IIRC) are
clearly not meant to cover things which are highly taxed. Nevertheless,
irrespective of what benefits are *meant* to cover, what individuals do is
up to them.

....

But the fact that some people on benefits can presumably afford to
smoke, must mean that the cost of a TV licence isn't totally
beyond their means, either.

Certainly not to the extent that the TV licence should be abolished
otr the cost reduced simply because it's beyond the means of people who
could neverthless quite possibly afford to smoke one packet of cigarettes
a week.

Which is what you appeared to be arguing previously.

....


Given that just 1 packet of cigarettes per week equals the cost of
the TV licence. If not more.

Indeed.

Oh champion of the poor and downtrodden !

I recognise that they exist. Some seem to regard them as mere TV licence
fodder whose fate is to shoulder some of the burden so that TV watching
can
be cheaper than it would otherwise would be (and maybe that is a
legitimate
pint of view - I'm not knocking it per se).

....

If it were the case that the likes of Sky or an existing subscription
channel offered markedly superior output, however defined, then that would
be a legitimate point of view. But as things stand, in terms of the BBC
representing the UK's largest single cultural institution, there is
no indication that paying more to other providers would provide a
better all round service. The logical outcome of that point of view
rather, might be to increase the cost of the BBC licence fee even further
and give a discount or partial exemption to those least able to afford
it.

....


Of course not all of the poor are on benefits. It's possible to be in work
and to be relatively poor.

....

Yes well. Without straying to deeply into the politics, there are Tax
Credits.

A badly flawed system, admittedly.


michael adams

....

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
For 2 channels in black and white, with no breakfast, or daytime TV
to speak of, and a closedown at 11.30 or 12.00 if they were really
pushing the boat out. And looking forward to Hancock (BBC), Arthur
Haynes
(ITV*), Dixon of Dock Green on a Saturday evening (BBC), and Sunday
Night at
the London Palladium (ITV*), as the highlights of the week. Jumpers
for
goalposts, etc, etc, etc.


Hmm, some would say that was the golden era of television. Video
certainly did kill the radio star, or any other star for that
matter!...

Who really needs Breakfast television,

....

Shift workers. The elderly maybe, for company in the mornings

....

who really needs morning kids television were pre school kids are
now just dumped in front of a TV

....

Many children probably obtain more stimulation from a TV than they'd
ever got from their parents.

....

set rather than being allowed to play or interact with their parents
/ carers,

....

Eulogising the none existent parenting and communicating skills
of many parents isn't actually an argument.

...

who needs 24/7 television that encourages the 'couch
potato' problem of obese people who don't do anything to exercise the
body?

....

That's more a product of modern society and the general replacemant
of human effort by mechanical power - the motor car etc in itself
one of the primary goals of technology - than again anything to do
with TV as such.

None of which is germane to the particular point I'm trying to make
in any case.



michael adams

....

michael adams

....

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

[ ... ]

... all a qualification means is that you remembered a certain
snippet of information on a certain day, it in know way says anything
about how talented you are - just that you can store and retrieve
facts

Beyond satire.

And not even defensible as a typo.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

[ ... ]

Who really needs Breakfast television, who really needs morning kids
television were pre school kids are now just dumped in front of a TV
set rather than being allowed to play or interact with their parents
/ carers, who needs 24/7 television that encourages the 'couch
potato' problem of obese people who don't do anything to exercise the
body?

Well said.