1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
I would imagine that the TV licence fee is among the basic requirements
which are included in the basic living costs on which basic State
Benefits are calculated.

The current benefit rates aren't calculated in that way so, in effect, nothing
is included in the basic requirements (not even food). However they are based
on Supplementary Benefits and they were originally calculated in that way and
did include the cost of a TV licence.

[ex-Supplementary Benefits Officer]

--
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

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

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.

Not even then.

There was a time (within living memory) when there was only one TV channel.
No-one was forced to watch it. Millions didn't.

OK, it's fair to say that we are never going to replicate that situation
again, and that television has become integral to domestic life, but even
so, no-one is forced to watch TV.

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?

Certainly not from the US. There's *nothing* made for US TV that I
watch. the nearest I come to it is joint-funded ventures made by the
BBC.


You may not like US TV, but US series are frequently successful in the UK.

And the only US-UK joint venture that springs to mind is Rome, that I found
to be tripe.


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. Also, HBO
apparently takes more risks than it would do if it only sold to ad-funded TV
networks because it sells series to cable (subscription) networks in the US.

I think it does stand to reason that subscription-funded TV or radio is far
more likely to provide programming that ad-funded TV and radio wouldn't
provide. A good example is Jazz FM on radio in the UK, which has recently
ceased to exist because it hadn't made a profit in its 15 years of existence
apparently, yet on a subscription-based system you *would* get a jazz
station, I'm absolutely sure of that - there's about 4 of them on each of
the US satellite digital radio systems.


--
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

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

I do mention whether a set-top box has Now & Next or a 7/8-day EPG,

....

And where does it explain where those terms mean, eh dim-boy ?

WTF does "Now or Next" or "7/8" mean to someone who's never ever
owned a set top box, eh lard-brain ?

So that either you're even more stupid than you're making out, in
claiming that your spam is actually of any use, or you're lying
through your teeth.

Not an enviable choice for anybody to have to make, but there
you go.

....

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?

....

It doesn't say which do and which don't in every case, does it, eh liar ?

Or what those terms actually mean ?

No it doesn't!

Which makes all such mentions next to useless in any case. And your
"comparison guide" so called a hollow gesture, whose actual purpose
has nothing whatsoever to do with providing useful information, as
you claim. It's all just a pretext, a hollow sham.

So not only are you a spammer, already the lowest of the low, but
unlike in the case of Robinson - for all I can tell at least as I
have no interst in DVD's - you stand accuse of posting sham spam!

....

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

....

Good!

That saves me from getting sucked in, against my better judgement,
into any more pointless arguments with yet another spammer.

It's just unfortunate for you, that owing to the upcoming TdF I was
motivated into buying a Freeview box, and thus sampled for the
first time your puny efforts at spamming.


michael adams

....



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

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

Logic error: BBC will still exist and make programmes, but it will
be subscription-funded.


No it won't, the BBC is a PSB service, they make what people should
or need to watch,


What, like DIY SOS on tonight on BBC1?

Indeed. A popular programme, I believe. You might be more interested in Big
Cat Week on BBC1 though.

--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Jerry:::: wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
ChrisM wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
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.


Don't usually get involved in this debate, as it is clear that both
sides have clear and very fixed thoughts on the subject, and no
amount of arguing is going to get anyone to change their mind,
Just wanted to stick my 2p worth in anyway though, and will
probably live to regret it...
Why such a fuss about the licence fee? We are talking about £2.50 a
week here, that's a pint of lager, or 10 fags or few of cups of
coffee in a cafe(one cup of it's Starbucks!) A WEEK. Not really
very much is it!


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).


That is a weak argument when we are talking about under 50 pence a
day for something that no one is forced to own.


People are forced to pay it if they want to watch TV, but an
increasing number of people do not watch BBC TV, which is the point.

Yet it is a proven statistic that the BBC channels are still the
most-watched channels, even in "digital" homes.

--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Qualifications don't mean you are talented.

Very true, all a qualification means is that you remembered a certain
snippet of information on a certain day,


Absolute nonsense, and that proves that you've never taken a degree-level
exam in your life.


it in know way says anything
about how talented you are


"it in know way"?


- just that you can store and retrieve
facts - nothing what so ever about what you can do with those facts.


Here's some example exam questions from a DSP course at Cambridge Uni:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/tripos/t-Dig...rocessing.html

I'd say those questions show that you *do* have to understand what you need
to do with the facts that you're taught.



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

Paul Taylor wrote:
- I do not believe that it provides good value for money. I would
much rather not pay the fee, and not view or listen to any of the
BBC's output. I would get far more pleasure from an extra pint of
beer every week (BTW, you can get it much cheaper than that) ;

I'd be very pleased to have a BBC multiplex jammer fitted. Even
better if it meant I didn't have to pay the idiots for their
overdogged, overmarketed ****e "service". It seems anything I might
rarely want to watch on "BBC FOUR" is covered by a dog, so I never
watch anything on this channel. Never even bother looking. And it's
no more a "digital channel" than any other of the other few are that
I watch on freeview.
All broadcasters: USE THE BLOODY EPG instead of spoiling the picture
with a permanent DOG.
Any crap on the screen for more than 4 seconds is unacceptable to me.

And *if* it's true that less people are avoiding paying the licence
fee, maybe it's comparable to stating that nobody (still alive)
wanted Sadam or Adolf to leave power :-)

I can't believe the BBC will be getting a full-term charter renewal,
given their quality of service.

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)

I wonder how long the channel has to be shown for to be considered
"watched"? :-)

Does anyone really watch BBC FOUR (with DOG)?

I think the figure is 15 mins. However, I also believe that the *average*
viewing time is in the order of 7 or 9 hours per week.

--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495

Arfur Million wrote:
missable, or is available in other outlets. I notice that you even
include a cookery programme - is this what the licence fee is for?

So, people who like to cook and who pay their LF aren't allowed to have any
programming on their fsvourite subject?
Nice job, Arfer :-/


--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495

Java Jive wrote:
I can see your argument, but I can also see the counter argument. You
either have to take the stance that the BBC should provide output to
appeal to a fair cross-section of the population, or that it should
cover only those minority interests inadequately covered by other
broadcasters. The trouble with the former approach is that the BBC

Yes. It's called "damned if they do and damned if they don't'. Basically,
they can't win!

--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495