9.4 MILLION People CHOOSE to pay SKY....

Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
Forum Member
Sky have 9.4 million subscribers and that number is increasing daily.

Most subscriptions are [annually] 2 or 3 times the TV Licence fee - Is this a sign of what little entertainment the BBC offers

Would the same number CHOOSE to pay the BBC?

I think not. Its time the Licence fee was scrapped and people given the choice.

Why do you subscribe to Sky? 202 votes

Terrestrial TV (eg BBC/ITV/CH4/FIVE etc) doesn't fulfil my programme needs
81% 164 votes
Better Picture Quality
9% 19 votes
I cannot receive TV via an aerial
9% 19 votes
«134567156

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 237
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »

    I think not. Its time the Licence fee was scrapped and people given the choice.

    I was just thinking that we needed another DS thread arguing this point.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But the licence isn't strictly a TV Licence anymore. It funds their radio stations, Internet services, TV channels and interactive services and helps pay for shows to be produced and syndicated around the world.

    They offer way more than people think and at £11 a month, I'd say they offered value for money.
  • PeterBPeterB Posts: 9,487
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Sky have 9.4 million subscribers and that number is increasing daily.

    Most subscriptions are [annually] 2 or 3 times the TV Licence fee - Is this a sign of what little entertainment the BBC offers

    Would the same number CHOOSE to pay the BBC?

    I think not. Its time the Licence fee was scrapped and people given the choice.

    What are the viewing figures for BBC programmes?

    People do pay for specialised channels such as sport, as you would expect. Does not indicate much about what the BBC offers.

    What choice - to pay Sky or not have TV?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 260
    Forum Member
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    But the licence isn't strictly a TV Licence anymore. It funds their radio stations, Internet services, TV channels and interactive services and helps pay for shows to be produced and syndicated around the world.

    They offer way more than people think and at £11 a month, I'd say they offered value for money.


    No, disagree with that

    Why should we be forced to pay this, I watch nothing on BBC and dont listen to their radio stations etc
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 260
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Sky have 9.4 million subscribers and that number is increasing daily.

    Most subscriptions are [annually] 2 or 3 times the TV Licence fee - Is this a sign of what little entertainment the BBC offers

    Would the same number CHOOSE to pay the BBC?

    I think not. Its time the Licence fee was scrapped and people given the choice.

    Wonder if the churn rate is still below 10%?
  • SpartanWoddySpartanWoddy Posts: 146
    Forum Member
    Using that method of argument 13 million chose not to pay for Sky and are content with what the BBC give them.

    You can't base your case on how many people subscribe to Sky. I do because I can afford it, but I watch the BBC too. I chose to watch what I want. I pay for channels i want and I also pay for a license to watch TV.

    The real argument is, should I have to pay to watch TV?

    People have different views, however its not gonna happen anytime soon!
  • PeterBPeterB Posts: 9,487
    Forum Member
    turbos wrote: »
    No, disagree with that

    Why should we be forced to pay this, I watch nothing on BBC and dont listen to their radio stations etc

    What about the rest of your household?
  • No-NoNo-No Posts: 426
    Forum Member
    turbos wrote: »
    No, disagree with that

    Why should we be forced to pay this, I watch nothing on BBC and dont listen to their radio stations etc

    Then don't pay them, if you or anyone in your household genuinely doesn't watch BBC programs nor uses their site, then don't pay them. Simples.
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    Using that method of argument 13 million chose not to pay for Sky and are content with what the BBC give them.

    You can't base your case on how many people subscribe to Sky. I do because I can afford it, but I watch the BBC too. I chose to watch what I want. I pay for channels i want and I also pay for a license to watch TV.

    The real argument is, should I have to pay to watch TV?

    People have different views, however its not gonna happen anytime soon!


    13 million people dont have a choice. Not really the same thing is it?!
  • bwfcolbwfcol Posts: 13,670
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PeterB wrote: »
    What about the rest of your household?

    He probably lives on his own, has never watched any BBC channel, listened to any BBC radio station or used any BBC website or used Ceefax/Red Button. He's also never watched a BBC program on Dave etc.

    He's never even watched BBC News, he always watches ITV/C4 News ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Sky have 9.4 million subscribers and that number is increasing daily.

    Most subscriptions are [annually] 2 or 3 times the TV Licence fee - Is this a sign of what little entertainment the BBC offers

    Would the same number CHOOSE to pay the BBC?

    I think not. Its time the Licence fee was scrapped and people given the choice.

    Completely agree
  • No-NoNo-No Posts: 426
    Forum Member
    bwfcol wrote: »
    He probably lives on his own, has never watched any BBC channel, listened to any BBC radio station or used any BBC website or used Ceefax/Red Button. He's also never watched a BBC program on Dave etc.

    He's never even watched BBC News, he always watches ITV/C4 News ;)

    He wouldn't need to pay his license fee to watch that as Dave buy that program.

    Don't they? :o
  • sugapunksugapunk Posts: 1,040
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No-No wrote: »
    He wouldn't need to pay his license fee to watch that as Dave buy that program.

    Don't they? :o

    The programmes wouldn't exist in the first place though!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 237
    Forum Member
    I pay for a Sky subscription but still watch plenty of BBC output through it - with the digital switchover etc. everyone will have to choose a platform to watch terrestrial channels on, it just happens that Sky is the most popular because of the number of other services it offers: sport and movie channels and the add-ons of phone and broadband services at very competitive prices, so on and so forth.

    The increasing number of HD channels is also a huge factor in the increased uptake. Just because people pay for a Sky subscription doesn't mean they don't watch the BBC's output so saying that 9 million people choose Sky because they don't care for the BBC doesn't hold water for me.
  • No-NoNo-No Posts: 426
    Forum Member
    sugapunk wrote: »
    The programmes wouldn't exist in the first place though!

    But they've been sold one though. So doesn't matter as long as he doesn't watch the original broadcast he isn't in the wrong. When it comes on another channel they buy the rights to it, just kind alike the BBC did but with our money.



    Correct me if I am wrong please. :D
  • jam2000jam2000 Posts: 3,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Sky have 9.4 million subscribers and that number is increasing daily.

    Most subscriptions are [annually] 2 or 3 times the TV Licence fee - Is this a sign of what little entertainment the BBC offers

    Would the same number CHOOSE to pay the BBC?

    I think not. Its time the Licence fee was scrapped and people given the choice.

    :yawn:
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a117470/sky-nears-9m-subs-reduces-churn.html

    The DS article claims 8.95million not 9.4million.

    It's still a lot of course, surprised me! I would imagine that means a lot more than 9million people have Sky since it would be a household thing.


    If the BBC really were "popular" and "the nations favourite" I somehow doubt so many households would bother to pay a lot of money to Sky every year.


    All BBC channels are available for a next-to-nothing one-off cost, the Freeview box. So why would people therefore reject such a cheap option?

    Because, whether they wish to admit it to themselves or not, the BBC does not offer much of quality or worth nowadays.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 237
    Forum Member
    No-No wrote: »
    But they've been sold one though. So doesn't matter as long as he doesn't watch the original broadcast he isn't in the wrong. When it comes on another channel they buy the rights to it, just kind alike the BBC did but with our money.



    Correct me if I am wrong please. :D

    You're not wrong but the point I think the poster is making is that if (and I know it's an if) people do watch the masses of BBC programmes on Dave etc. then it seems a bit hypocritical to campaign against the license fee, that's all.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 543
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Sky have 9.4 million subscribers and that number is increasing daily.

    Most subscriptions are [annually] 2 or 3 times the TV Licence fee - Is this a sign of what little entertainment the BBC offers

    Would the same number CHOOSE to pay the BBC?

    I think not. Its time the Licence fee was scrapped and people given the choice.

    I subscribe to Sky for the sports coverage (which is excellent), but actually watch more BBC. I suspect there will be many who are similar.
  • SpartanWoddySpartanWoddy Posts: 146
    Forum Member
    The TV License is a tax. Simple as that. It is collected by the BBC and spent by them and others on providing a PSB for all.

    A wide variety that will appeal to some and probably most, just see weekly viewing figures for BBC channels.

    If you don't want to pay it, then don't. I don't pay for road fund license. My choice. Simples!

    Be warned though if you don't pay and get caught, it could be very costly. Its your choice.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 798
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Even though I'm totally bored with yet another rehash of this debate, I'll just put my oar in.
    I pay Sky but I also support the licence fee. It is not an either/or for me. I enjoy the extra choice and sport that Sky gives me but I also enjoy a lot of the BBC's output.

    A lot of stuff that the BBC does just wouldn't be done by other broadcasters.
  • PeterBPeterB Posts: 9,487
    Forum Member
    Tassium wrote: »
    http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a117470/sky-nears-9m-subs-reduces-churn.html

    The DS article claims 8.95million not 9.4million.

    It's still a lot of course, surprised me! I would imagine that means a lot more than 9million people have Sky since it would be a household thing.

    If the BBC really were "popular" and "the nations favourite" I somehow doubt so many households would bother to pay a lot of money to Sky every year.

    Check the viewing figures for BBC TV and radio.

    People pay for specialised programmes.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 237
    Forum Member
    Tassium wrote: »
    http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a117470/sky-nears-9m-subs-reduces-churn.html

    If the BBC really were "popular" and "the nations favourite" I somehow doubt so many households would bother to pay a lot of money to Sky every year.

    I might love the films of Martin Scorsese but that wouldn't mean I wouldn't want to watch anyone else's sometimes.
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    I pay for a Sky subscription but still watch plenty of BBC output through it - with the digital switchover etc. everyone will have to choose a platform to watch terrestrial channels on, it just happens that Sky is the most popular because of the number of other services it offers: sport and movie channels and the add-ons of phone and broadband services at very competitive prices, so on and so forth.

    The increasing number of HD channels is also a huge factor in the increased uptake. Just because people pay for a Sky subscription doesn't mean they don't watch the BBC's output so saying that 9 million people choose Sky because they don't care for the BBC doesn't hold water for me.

    Noone, well certainly not me, is saying that people who pay for Sky NEVER watch the BBC.

    What I am saying is, that despite this so-called huge entertainment package offered to us by the BBC, 9.4 million people still choose to take out a Sky subscription at considerable additional cost.

    Also, HD is recent, the uptake doesnt account for more than 10% of current subscribers and ditto broadband and voice.

    And I disagree that Sky is all about the Sport and Movies....there is excellent variety of the best US shows, documentaries and more. And most have not been made by the BBC.

    Incidentally, most of the BBC shows broadcast were not made by the BBC either...and still are not.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    PeterB wrote: »
    Check the viewing figures for BBC TV and radio.

    People pay for specialised programmes.

    So BBC1 sometimes "beats" ITV1 in the ratings, so what? It does it by going lo-brow most of the time.


    There are all these other TV channels as well you know. Collectively, FAR MORE people don't watch BBC than do.
Sign In or Register to comment.