Nope, You are paying for a lot of programmes that have ALREADY been paid for.
Again, so what?
What point are you trying to score?
The BBC isn't exactly adverse to showing repeats...
Of course there are lots of repeats on Sky, but every night across those dozens of channels I always find far more new stuff (or new to me) that I want to watch than I ever do on BBC.
Last week everything I watched on Sky was new. There was SGU, Fringe, SWCW, Walking Dead, 5 nights of new documentaries on big cats on NG we watched, journey to the solar system, plus of course some live football, cricket and a premier film, and so on... I didn't clock up hours watching reruns of the Simpsons if that's what you think. I rarely watch a repeat of anything, on any channel.
Hence, getting back to the original question.. is it VFM?.
For me, on a per hour per person watched, my Sky subscription is, BBC isn't. Clearly everyone will have a different outlook.
But I was just illustrating why some people, like me. will think that the BBC isn't good VFM if asked, a concept you seem reluctant to accept.
Do TV channels have demographics? What did kids and young adults watch back in the 20th century?
With the proliferation of channels in this multi-channel age (an age that began in the early 1990's), of course channels have demographics. To suggest otherwise is nonsensical.
Subscription media creates LITTLE in the way of new programming, much of it has already been paid for by somebody else.
So, your money isn't really going towards programming in a great extent.
Every programme is new at some point in its life. So subscription media creates a huge amount of new programming. Of course the financial management of that is complex. e.g. Channel 4 paying for old Simpsons repeats helps fund the creation of new episodes only available on Sky at first.
Like I said, everything I watched last week was new, and argueably would not have got the funding from the sudio if they didn't believe that broadcasters like Sky were going to take it up, and Sky wouldn't have done that if they didn't believe I wasn't going to subscribe. Much of the time the studios need that committment before they even make the programme.
So, AFAICS my Sky subscription is contributing in its small way to the production of new programming that I want to watch, every bit as much as my TV licence funds new programming I want to watch on the BBC.
And I would think the average viewer cares even less, and couldn't give a damn who commissioned what, when and why, and who paid who for it to be made, and who paid who for it to be broadcast. Only pedantic industry insiders seem to worry over such things...
How come you know so much about BBC3, we know that you don't watch it!
And yet everything I watched on pay TV was new.
And most of the time, at the same time BBC was showing a repeat...
Of course there are lots of repeats on Pay TV. But with so many channels there is always something new somewhere.
I don't want to watch TV 24x7. For the hours I do spend watching it, there is already too much new progamming that might appeal to me than I can take in.
Whereas on BBC repeats are much more noticable because of the fewer channels that there are. At certain times when you look at the schedule every single channel is showing a repeat at that time.
And I would think the average viewer cares even less, and couldn't give a damn who commissioned what, when and why, and who paid who for it to be made, and who paid who for it to be broadcast. Only pedantic industry insiders seem to worry over such things...
It depends in part on one's persepctive. For those working in the UK media industry, there is a vested interest in having as much UK-generated content as possible. Which is understandable, but those same industry people shouldn't be surprised when others oppose the notion of being effectively forced to pay for it (if one wants to watch television) whether or not they wish to view the programme in question.
but those same industry people shouldn't be surprised when others oppose the notion of being effectively forced to pay for it (if one wants to watch television) whether or not they wish to view the programme in question.
But, isn't it true that you (even with Pay TV) you are forced to pay for things you don't want in order to watch things you do?
But, isn't it true that you (even with Pay TV) you are forced to pay for things you don't want in order to watch things you do?
Haven't been through this a thousand times before? How much of the BBC's total output does even the most avid viewer/listener ever consume? 10%? I don't mind if there are many thousands of hours on the various Sky channels I'll never watch, I pay the subscription fee they ask for the programmes that I do.
BBC Parliament should be the last to go. It's the single most important PSB channel in the UK. And the cheapest to run to boot.
As an obvious fan of this, can I ask: Would you mind if (on freeview anyway) it were broadcast partially on the screen with some text, rather than fullscreen as it used to be and the freeview bandwidth leased out to produce income for the BBC?
Haven't been through this a thousand times before? How much of the BBC's total output does even the most avid viewer/listener ever consume? 10%? I don't mind if there are many thousands of hours on the various Sky channels I'll never watch, I pay the subscription fee they ask for the programmes that I do.
So, it's not difference in terms of "choice", but one costs much more and creates less.
How much of the BBC's total output does even the most avid viewer/listener ever consume? 10%?
What does this matter? One of the main points of the BBC is to make DIVERSE content, so it's not always going to appeal to the mass-market!
As an obvious fan of this, can I ask: Would you mind if (on freeview anyway) it were broadcast partially on the screen with some text, rather than fullscreen as it used to be and the freeview bandwidth leased out to produce income for the BBC?
So, it's not difference in terms of "choice", but one costs much more and creates less.
It's completely different in terms of choice. Evey single Sky subscriber chooses to do so, the BBC is paid for by an effectively mandatory fee.
Sky creates less, but so what? There are already plenty of UK tv channels creating new programmes, Sky have (sensibly) decided there's not much point adding to that, and focus their efforts on sports (which they do extremely well, they don't miss live action because they can't schedule themselves out of a paper bag, like the BBC have done on a few occasions recently, or by inanely cutting to adverts, like ITV), news/sports news, and US programming, which is already very well done and is in English.
What does this matter? One of the main points of the BBC is to make DIVERSE content, so it's not always going to appeal to the mass-market!
So when Sky offers lots of programmes above and beyond what each individual viewer chooses to watch, that's a terrible waste, but when the BBC does the same thing, it's diverse content?
... Sky have (sensibly) decided there's not much point adding to that, and focus their efforts on sports (which they do extremely well, they don't miss live action because they can't schedule themselves out of a paper bag, like the BBC have done on a few occasions recently, or by inanely cutting to adverts, like ITV), news/sports news, and US programming, which is already very well done and is in English.
So when Sky offers lots of programmes above and beyond what each individual viewer chooses to watch, that's a terrible waste, but when the BBC does the same thing, it's diverse content?
You make some very good points again and again, I think the main reason Sky is a success is the failure of BBC and ITV to schedule sport properly among their other programmes.
It's completely different in terms of choice. Evey single Sky subscriber chooses to do so, the BBC is paid for by an effectively mandatory fee.
Sky creates less, but so what? There are already plenty of UK tv channels creating new programmes, Sky have (sensibly) decided there's not much point adding to that, and focus their efforts on sports (which they do extremely well, they don't miss live action because they can't schedule themselves out of a paper bag, like the BBC have done on a few occasions recently, or by inanely cutting to adverts, like ITV), news/sports news, and US programming, which is already very well done and is in English.
So when Sky offers lots of programmes above and beyond what each individual viewer chooses to watch, that's a terrible waste, but when the BBC does the same thing, it's diverse content?
No, the BBC has to create lots of English content, it's far more worthy of money than Sky is.
Without the BBC creating things then the UK media industry will suffer, as so much of it's many thousands of hours of TV and Radio content a week is home produced.
As to "choice", both the License fee and Pay TV subscription involve funding things we don't always want, yes?
You make some very good points again and again, I think the main reason Sky is a success is the failure of BBC and ITV to schedule sport properly among their other programmes.
Nope, the BBC and ITV CANNOT afford to outbid Sky.
Also, the BBC is not allowed any more channels, so it's inevitable that some channel changing goes on, yes?
Without the BBC creating things then the UK media industry will suffer, as so much of it's many thousands of hours of TV and Radio content a week is home produced.
Agreed, although if that same content would be created by another channel, then the BBC need not bother, its costs could be reduced and/or it could focus its efforts on just worthwhile programmes that commercial television wouldn't generate.
As to "choice", both the License fee and Pay TV subscription involve funding things we don't always want, yes?
Agreed, this is the point I was making a couple of posts ago. Although in the case of the TVL, there are at least some (and probably a few million) people who would willingly give up all of the BBC services if it meant they could avoid paying the TVL. The same is not true of those who sign up for Sky.
That's your opinion. I'm not so sure the 10 million people who pay for Sky would agree, nor our friends in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Have you asked them? nope.
Keeping the creative UK media strong is very important. Yes, you can pay more to a company to view programmes that have already been paid for elsewhere, but this should not be at the expense of creating content in the first place.
Agreed, although if that same content would be created by another channel, then the BBC need not bother, its costs could be reduced and/or it could focus its efforts on just worthwhile programmes that commercial television wouldn't generate.
But that's not going to happen though.
Commercial radio is a success because it does nothing much more than playing the same 60-70 songs over and over again, it does nothing particularly worthy.
Commercial TV is very good at making "Cowell-athons" and concentrating on commercially-lucrative content, but it's not great at doing much else.
Agreed, this is the point I was making a couple of posts ago. Although in the case of the TVL, there are at least some (and probably a few million) people who would willingly give up all of the BBC services if it meant they could avoid paying the TVL. The same is not true of those who sign up for Sky.
Again, you haven't asked.
I'm sure if you said "Would you rather pay less in exchange for only paying for what you want" the answer would be "Yes".
I'm sure if you said "Would you rather pay less in exchange for only paying for what you want" the answer would be "Yes".
on the basis of your argument here, and remebering Sky , firstly, is optional and, secondly, have a multitude of different packages and levels of subscription options, would you support the all or nothing and one fee fits all stance of the BBC licence fee or back those of us who suggest a similar tiered or optional BBC licence fee for those less fanatical of the BBC.
after all Sky is optional on you TV and there are differing levels of entry, something the BBC doesn't allow.
You all know that the BBC will have to cut something, be it programmes or channels, TV or radio. The licence fee is frozen, and the BBC has to spend it differently.
This debate between a couple a dozen poster on Digi-spy is going to make no difference, fun although it can be.
BBC Studios and Post Production will loose approx a 3rd of its staff when Childrens moves to Salford.
They are looking less and less likely to survive as a BBC department. Once they have gone, the BBC will have run out of parts to sell off for short term gain.
It is at that point channels will close and/or output will change.
on the basis of your argument here, and remebering Sky , firstly, is optional and, secondly, have a multitude of different packages and levels of subscription options, would you support the all or nothing and one fee fits all stance of the BBC licence fee or back those of us who suggest a similar tiered or optional BBC licence fee for those less fanatical of the BBC.
after all Sky is optional on you TV and there are differing levels of entry, something the BBC doesn't allow.
All or nothing is better in this case as it CREATES more than Pay TV EVER will.
Cutting back the BBC to very little is not going to help anyone as they will have to pay MUCH MORE to pay-TV and still NOT facilitate the creation of British Content.
Comments
Again, so what?
What point are you trying to score?
The BBC isn't exactly adverse to showing repeats...
Of course there are lots of repeats on Sky, but every night across those dozens of channels I always find far more new stuff (or new to me) that I want to watch than I ever do on BBC.
Last week everything I watched on Sky was new. There was SGU, Fringe, SWCW, Walking Dead, 5 nights of new documentaries on big cats on NG we watched, journey to the solar system, plus of course some live football, cricket and a premier film, and so on... I didn't clock up hours watching reruns of the Simpsons if that's what you think. I rarely watch a repeat of anything, on any channel.
Hence, getting back to the original question.. is it VFM?.
For me, on a per hour per person watched, my Sky subscription is, BBC isn't. Clearly everyone will have a different outlook.
But I was just illustrating why some people, like me. will think that the BBC isn't good VFM if asked, a concept you seem reluctant to accept.
With the proliferation of channels in this multi-channel age (an age that began in the early 1990's), of course channels have demographics. To suggest otherwise is nonsensical.
And for BBC Three I recall 80% repeats.
Subscription media creates LITTLE in the way of new programming, much of it has already been paid for by somebody else.
So, your money isn't really going towards programming in a great extent.
And pay-TV is usually 90-100% repeats Slo!:D
How come you know so much about BBC3, we know that you don't watch it!
Every programme is new at some point in its life. So subscription media creates a huge amount of new programming. Of course the financial management of that is complex. e.g. Channel 4 paying for old Simpsons repeats helps fund the creation of new episodes only available on Sky at first.
Like I said, everything I watched last week was new, and argueably would not have got the funding from the sudio if they didn't believe that broadcasters like Sky were going to take it up, and Sky wouldn't have done that if they didn't believe I wasn't going to subscribe. Much of the time the studios need that committment before they even make the programme.
So, AFAICS my Sky subscription is contributing in its small way to the production of new programming that I want to watch, every bit as much as my TV licence funds new programming I want to watch on the BBC.
And I would think the average viewer cares even less, and couldn't give a damn who commissioned what, when and why, and who paid who for it to be made, and who paid who for it to be broadcast. Only pedantic industry insiders seem to worry over such things...
And yet everything I watched on pay TV was new.
And most of the time, at the same time BBC was showing a repeat...
Of course there are lots of repeats on Pay TV. But with so many channels there is always something new somewhere.
I don't want to watch TV 24x7. For the hours I do spend watching it, there is already too much new progamming that might appeal to me than I can take in.
Whereas on BBC repeats are much more noticable because of the fewer channels that there are. At certain times when you look at the schedule every single channel is showing a repeat at that time.
It depends in part on one's persepctive. For those working in the UK media industry, there is a vested interest in having as much UK-generated content as possible. Which is understandable, but those same industry people shouldn't be surprised when others oppose the notion of being effectively forced to pay for it (if one wants to watch television) whether or not they wish to view the programme in question.
Except it doesn't!
The vast majority of pay TV in this country is other broadcaster's programmes recycled.
It's already been paid for before you pay for it!!??
And yet, the BBC creates far more new programming than pay TV does.
Before you argue, the key is the word "creates".
But, isn't it true that you (even with Pay TV) you are forced to pay for things you don't want in order to watch things you do?
BBC Parliament should be the last to go. It's the single most important PSB channel in the UK. And the cheapest to run to boot.
Haven't been through this a thousand times before? How much of the BBC's total output does even the most avid viewer/listener ever consume? 10%? I don't mind if there are many thousands of hours on the various Sky channels I'll never watch, I pay the subscription fee they ask for the programmes that I do.
So, it's not difference in terms of "choice", but one costs much more and creates less.
What does this matter? One of the main points of the BBC is to make DIVERSE content, so it's not always going to appeal to the mass-market!
Just keep it as it is for goodness sake.
It's completely different in terms of choice. Evey single Sky subscriber chooses to do so, the BBC is paid for by an effectively mandatory fee.
Sky creates less, but so what? There are already plenty of UK tv channels creating new programmes, Sky have (sensibly) decided there's not much point adding to that, and focus their efforts on sports (which they do extremely well, they don't miss live action because they can't schedule themselves out of a paper bag, like the BBC have done on a few occasions recently, or by inanely cutting to adverts, like ITV), news/sports news, and US programming, which is already very well done and is in English.
So when Sky offers lots of programmes above and beyond what each individual viewer chooses to watch, that's a terrible waste, but when the BBC does the same thing, it's diverse content?
No, the BBC has to create lots of English content, it's far more worthy of money than Sky is.
Without the BBC creating things then the UK media industry will suffer, as so much of it's many thousands of hours of TV and Radio content a week is home produced.
As to "choice", both the License fee and Pay TV subscription involve funding things we don't always want, yes?
Nope, the BBC and ITV CANNOT afford to outbid Sky.
Also, the BBC is not allowed any more channels, so it's inevitable that some channel changing goes on, yes?
That's your opinion. I'm not so sure the 10 million people who pay for Sky would agree, nor our friends in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Agreed, although if that same content would be created by another channel, then the BBC need not bother, its costs could be reduced and/or it could focus its efforts on just worthwhile programmes that commercial television wouldn't generate.
Agreed, this is the point I was making a couple of posts ago. Although in the case of the TVL, there are at least some (and probably a few million) people who would willingly give up all of the BBC services if it meant they could avoid paying the TVL. The same is not true of those who sign up for Sky.
Have you asked them? nope.
Keeping the creative UK media strong is very important. Yes, you can pay more to a company to view programmes that have already been paid for elsewhere, but this should not be at the expense of creating content in the first place.
But that's not going to happen though.
Commercial radio is a success because it does nothing much more than playing the same 60-70 songs over and over again, it does nothing particularly worthy.
Commercial TV is very good at making "Cowell-athons" and concentrating on commercially-lucrative content, but it's not great at doing much else.
Again, you haven't asked.
I'm sure if you said "Would you rather pay less in exchange for only paying for what you want" the answer would be "Yes".
after all Sky is optional on you TV and there are differing levels of entry, something the BBC doesn't allow.
This debate between a couple a dozen poster on Digi-spy is going to make no difference, fun although it can be.
BBC Studios and Post Production will loose approx a 3rd of its staff when Childrens moves to Salford.
They are looking less and less likely to survive as a BBC department. Once they have gone, the BBC will have run out of parts to sell off for short term gain.
It is at that point channels will close and/or output will change.
All or nothing is better in this case as it CREATES more than Pay TV EVER will.
Cutting back the BBC to very little is not going to help anyone as they will have to pay MUCH MORE to pay-TV and still NOT facilitate the creation of British Content.
Can you not see this??!!