1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

To turn that round, should these people that watch BBC channels once or
twice per year be made to pay £130?

And think about all the people that watch very little BBC TV, but are
included in the 85%. Again, they aren't getting value for money.

Now don't start trying to argue on my behalf!

I'm quite happy to pay my licence fee to watch Dr Who / Casualty /
Hustle / whatever and listen to Radio 4. It averages out at 1-2 hours
of TV per week sometimes. I'm quite happy with that.

I'm deeply unhappy about the lack of accountability, but that's a
separate argument. I don't see ITV, Sky etc being more accountable.

Cheers,
David.

wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

To turn that round, should these people that watch BBC channels once
or twice per year be made to pay £130?

And think about all the people that watch very little BBC TV, but are
included in the 85%. Again, they aren't getting value for money.

Now don't start trying to argue on my behalf!

I'm quite happy to pay my licence fee to watch Dr Who / Casualty /
Hustle / whatever and listen to Radio 4. It averages out at 1-2 hours
of TV per week sometimes. I'm quite happy with that.


Okay, but there will still be a large number of people - millions of
people - that don't watch much BBC TV and don't feel it offers them good
value for money. And radio is a separate discussion, because although
funding comes from the licence fee people don't have to buy a TV licence to
listen to it.


I'm deeply unhappy about the lack of accountability, but that's a
separate argument. I don't see ITV, Sky etc being more accountable.


But we don't directly pay for ITV, Sky etc.


--
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

John Dean wrote:
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.

Got **** all to do with it.


????


The licence fee is payable for owning a
working TV receiver. What you watch is your own business. The fact
that the Government chooses to award the BBC an amount equal to the
collected licence fee is straightforward historical precedent.


So it cannot be "**** all to do with it" then.... Strewth.


--
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

Carl Waring wrote:
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.


That is entirely irrelevant to the point, which is that a large and
increasing number of people are not watching BBC TV at all, and these people
are therefore being charged for something they do not use.


--
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
...
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.

But you were claiming by juxtaposition that because there is no equivalent
of the BBC in the US and because the US is the source of many of the
programmes on our main channels, that there is no need for the BBC licence
fee to maintain the standard of Public Service Broadcasting, but that's a
complete non-sequitur.

The US sourced offerings on our main channels are all populist (and IMO
crap, but that's not the point). AFAIAA there is *no* non-populist
PSB-style US-sourced programming on the our channels. So, if we follow the
American business model, where is PSB going to come from?

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

I suggest that next time you look more closely at the final credits in many
of the BBC's wildlife documentary series, many are co-productions, commonly
with The Discovery Channel, eg: 'Planet Earth'.

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.

A) That's radio, we're talking TV, and ...

B) That's America, this is here, and the US programming environment is
very different to ours.

I'm not saying that it can't work here, but the evidence so far is
overwhelmingly that it won't, so I want to see it work here first before I
agree to the BBC going down that road.

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.

Name at least one, preferably several, HBO programme(s) that has/ve been
shown on British TV that those of us here might have seen and can therefore
express an opinion about.

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.

But it doesn't stand to reason that it will provide a better PSB alternative
than the BBC. In fact the evidence so far is that it won't.

The Cardboard Voord wrote:
Previously, in uk.media.tv.misc:

DAB sounds worse than FM said:

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).

Go on then, what exactly do you watch?


C4/More4/E4/BBC1/2/4/N24.

Why, what's that got to do with the people that don't watch BBC 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

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

And the beauty of subscription-funding is that they will be able to
make better programmes,

So can you identify any other broadcasting network that generates,
supports, nurtures, and broadcasts a range from which, on any one
day, a short extract will be better than what I quote (all taken from
today's BBC output)?


My issue with this is that you assume that the BBC will somehow stop making
programmes once it becomes subscription-funded. That's totally wrong.


--
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

Carl Waring wrote:
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?


One would be good, tens of the buggers is too much. Same with house
makeovers, DIY, gardening, insert nonsense genre.


--
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

Pyriform wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Your having a laugh! The BBC is apolitical,


cough Andrew Marr.

And what exactly has he done to offend you?


He lost his objectivity in the run up to the Iraq war and he became a
deranged madman. He seems to have calmed down now, but it took a hell of a
long time.


--
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

Carl Waring wrote:
Paul Taylor wrote:

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.


Irrelevant.


--
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