1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

Arfur Million wrote:
Stewart Smith wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:
(Does a quick google). OK then, let me rephrase that. I notice that you
even include a cookery programme for children - is this what the
licence fee is for?

If it's educational then yes, definitely. I think teaching kids about
real food is an extremely laudable thing to do.


In that case, it should surely be funded out of the education budget,
ie from general taxation? (That's assuming that it's worthwhile doing
on TV in the first place.)


So should the license fee only fund programs that you personally approve
of or should it fund programs which meet the BBC's founding principle to
inform, educate and entertain?

Stewart

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

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.


You might be a shoplifter but the majority pay for their items!
Anyway, we don't pay directly for the BBC either, as has been
pointed
out to you.


The TV licence is effectively direct payment to the BBC.

No it is not, the TVL is a licence to own / use a television
receiver, HMG then decides if they are to allow the BBC to use the
money that HMG receives via the TVL fee, they who give can take
away - why do you think the BBC ended up sh*ting bath bricks over the
Kelly case.

Also don't mix up who is charged, by parliament, with revenue
collection with who decides what the monies collected can be used
for.

I'm not sure why I
mentioned Sky, because you do pay directly for a Sky sub, but you
don't pay
directly for ITV, because it is wholly indirect, in that
advertisers pay to
have their ads shown on ITV, but we only pay indirectly for
advertising and
we may not buy the products that are advertised on ITV.

Sorry but that doesn't wash, if only one or two supermarkets or
brands advertised on TV then it might, but all the time that all the
main high street names are locked into competing advertising
campaigns we as consumers are paying for ITV - without being asked,
no one has asked me in my TESSCO, Waitrose or Morrison etc. if I want
to pay less and not receive their TV adverts!

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

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.


You might be a shoplifter but the majority pay for their items!
Anyway, we don't pay directly for the BBC either, as has been
pointed out to you.


The TV licence is effectively direct payment to the BBC.

No it is not, the TVL is a licence to own / use a television
receiver, HMG then decides if they are to allow the BBC to use the
money that HMG receives via the TVL fee, they who give can take
away - why do you think the BBC ended up sh*ting bath bricks over the
Kelly case.

Also don't mix up who is charged, by parliament, with revenue
collection with who decides what the monies collected can be used
for.


I've seen these drawn out arguments over the technicalities of the licence
fee before, and you end up being a crazed lunatic, so I'll let you take up
the issue with someone else.


I'm not sure why I
mentioned Sky, because you do pay directly for a Sky sub, but you
don't pay directly for ITV, because it is wholly indirect, in that
advertisers pay to have their ads shown on ITV, but we only pay
indirectly for advertising and we may not buy the products that are
advertised on ITV.

Sorry but that doesn't wash, if only one or two supermarkets or
brands advertised on TV then it might, but all the time that all the
main high street names are locked into competing advertising
campaigns we as consumers are paying for ITV - without being asked,
no one has asked me in my TESSCO, Waitrose or Morrison etc. if I want
to pay less and not receive their TV adverts!


We do not pay for ITV directly, obviously, because if we did pay for ITV
directly we would be paying ITV directly, which is not the case. QED.


--
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

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

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

So how come you are not working in the broadcast industry whilst
many who don't have a degree are?...


I've already told you several times that I wouldn't apply for jobs
in the broadcasting industry.


You don't seem to be applying for any jobs though, from what I
understand!


But we all know you understand little, Jerry, although in this case you're
right, but unless you're bugging my email and telephone, I don't know how
you'd know that - did your imaginary friend tell you?


--
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:
Java Jive wrote:
Because then they would be obsessed by subscription sales, and
there's not single example of a subscription-based organisation
successfully providing Public Service Broadcasting in this country.


I've already used the example of the US satellite digital radio
services that are subscription-based and provide content that is not
provided by ad-funded radio.

So list the good programmes that are on such a system today. For the
cost of the licence fee we'll be expecting a range and quality
similar to the one I posted about yesterday's programmes on the BBC -
and with enough variety for someone with quite different tastes to
make a similar list.


I don't have the time to go into "my list is longer and better than your
list" competitions. Sorry.


And I've also mentioned that Jazz FM ceased to exist in the UK, but I
would bet that if a subscription-based radio system were launched
there would be a jazz station.

I'll also bet that there is a not bad Jazz coverage on Radio 2 and
Radio 3.


So your answer to jazz coverage is to ignore the lack of a full-time jazz
station and listen to a couple of hours on each of R2 and R3 is it? You
silly billy.


I saw you mention science programmes in this thread, and Horizon is a
perfect example of something that's dumbed down for the masses -
that's happened because the BBC wants to make it more accessible,
because it has to appeal to everybody. If it was subscription-funded
I think it would be more daring and provide less accessible
programming without having the worry of being criticised by the
media for only getting X thousand viewers to certain programmes,
which it currently does get stick for.

Though it has recently produced world's best science programmes in
other areas.


"World's best science programmes"? I must've missed that one.


In any case if you don't want science to be dumbed down
science try Radio 4 and much is even available as listen again with
notes and links to further study.


Why can't they do science with moving pictures? We do pay for a TV licence.

Oh, and I try to avoid Listen Again, due to its diabolical audio quality.
I'm still waiting for the BBC Marketing advert for:

Low audio quality

This is what we do.


The BBC is obsessed by ratings, which for a public service
broadcaster is wrong, and it leads to all the ****e that they do
provide. If they were subscription-funded then they could take a
more holistic view to programming, so that those of us that want to
be stretched intellectually can be. Like you, I can't even remember
the last time I was stretched intellectually by watching a
programme. No, I tell a lie, it was a programme on C4 about M-Theory
in physics - not even on the fking BBC! The BBC is crap when it
comes to things like this.

I realise that life after Joad and Bronowsky is a bit of a let down -
but are you sure you followed Saturday's programme on Liquid Crystals?


Don't know WTF you're going on about, but the thing I didn't understand
about M-Theory was where all the 13 dimensions are - I know of 3 spatial + 1
time dimension, but I found it difficult to visualise the other 9
dimensions. If you can help me out on that I'd be much obliged. Otherwise,
stick to your simple LCD stuff.


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

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.


You might be a shoplifter but the majority pay for their items!
Anyway, we don't pay directly for the BBC either, as has been
pointed out to you.


The TV licence is effectively direct payment to the BBC.

No it is not, the TVL is a licence to own / use a television
receiver, HMG then decides if they are to allow the BBC to use
the
money that HMG receives via the TVL fee, they who give can take
away - why do you think the BBC ended up sh*ting bath bricks over
the
Kelly case.

Also don't mix up who is charged, by parliament, with revenue
collection with who decides what the monies collected can be used
for.


I've seen these drawn out arguments over the technicalities of the
licence
fee before, and you end up being a crazed lunatic, so I'll let you
take up
the issue with someone else.


Oh right, so quoteing fact and the law means one is a crazed
lunatic...


I'm not sure why I
mentioned Sky, because you do pay directly for a Sky sub, but
you
don't pay directly for ITV, because it is wholly indirect, in
that
advertisers pay to have their ads shown on ITV, but we only pay
indirectly for advertising and we may not buy the products that
are
advertised on ITV.

Sorry but that doesn't wash, if only one or two supermarkets or
brands advertised on TV then it might, but all the time that all
the
main high street names are locked into competing advertising
campaigns we as consumers are paying for ITV - without being
asked,
no one has asked me in my TESSCO, Waitrose or Morrison etc. if I
want
to pay less and not receive their TV adverts!


We do not pay for ITV directly, obviously, because if we did pay
for ITV
directly we would be paying ITV directly, which is not the case.
QED.


We don't pay for the BBC directly either then, we buy a TVL, from the
state who then fund the BBC - QED as you say...

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

An alternative would be a merger with Sky so you would pay for BBC Sports
and BBC Movies through the license fee instead of paying for Sky Sports and
Sky Movies through a Sky subscription, and justify the existence of the
license fee that way. They could also bring the Sky "basic package" into the
license fee, for example by taking the adverts off uktv (which would be a
good thing), and giving the channels new names like BBC Gold and BBC Drama.

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message

In that case, there was no question in your post after all.
You should have quit while you were ahead, eh?

quote

Sentences which describe a question [ i.e. are a reference to a question
- see above ] but do not directly ask a question are called indirect
questions. They do not take a question mark.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Try taking a look in the mirror, eh loser ?

A question referred to is not a question.

Honestly, you should have quit while you were ahead. I gave you the chance.

Alex wrote:
At 02:41:06 on 11/07/2006, michael adams delighted uk.tech.digital-tv
by announcing:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...

And before you succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself,
by attempting a follow up punctuation-flame concerning the lack of
a question mark Mr Nugent, I need only point out that the sentence
in question is a reference to a question or topic for discussion,
rather than a direct question in itself.

In that case, there was no question in your post after all.


quote

Sentences which describe a question [ i.e. are a reference to a
question - see above ] but do not directly ask a question are called
indirect questions. They do not take a question mark.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Because they are *not* questions.

:-)

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:

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.

Must it?

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.

Wrong. I have not argued that the TV licence should be abolished. I simply
refuse to stand flat-footedly on one side of the argument.

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.

People used to swear blind (this back in1954/1955) that commercial
television would be "American-style". ITV may be rubbish now, but it wasn't
in the 1950s. It was rather like the BBC with adverts. It's all changed now.

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.

Or to fund it out of general taxation.

Or to use the National Lottery (all of it) to fund the BBC.

Or to make the BBC get rid of the things it has no business doing anyway
because the commercial sector does it jut as well - or as badly (like Radio
1 and its digital acolytes).

Or a combination of more than one of the above.

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.