200 channels of repeats and US imports

124

Comments

  • steveh31steveh31 Posts: 13,516
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    Depends what you mean by unmanned.

    Some channels are live for certain hours with a crew present in the gallery and possibly at outside broadcasts. The live output is put on a server an endless loop is created the crew go home and put the server to air. There might be an engineer around but more than likely not and the only human is the one at the transmission centre which could hundreds of miles away.

    Also at the transmission centre one person may be responsible for five channels and may explain why channels fall off-air because no one is around to fix the issue till the next day.

    Which is why when Bid tv went bust the channel had a caption stating "they would be back shortly" as a transmission company ran they channel from miles away and was not made aware of the situation, as it was a bank holiday or they were contracted to continue with the broadcast and the channel just went to a still graphic.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Oh, change the record. You've been given reasons, now hush. It's fine to dislike something, but you don't need to keep banging on about it.
    Or ok you can't answer the question because sky+ doesn't offer anything that other PVR's don't.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 80
    Forum Member
    Not Sky 1.

    The big five are BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV(1), CH4 & CH5

    So all former analogue terrestrial channels.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    Jack1 wrote: »
    That's a false equivalent, because you are getting some benefit whereas you have to pay for the BBC and you may not watch it all.

    Don't agree, i know many people who have Sky ONLY for football, but are forced to pay for other things as part of the bundle.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,579
    Forum Member
    BBC One/Two
    ITV
    C4
    C5
    Sky 1?
    That's six. However, I meant Channels 1-5 (or 101-105). Sorry. Could have explained that better I suppose :blush:
    Not Sky 1.

    The big five are BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV(1), CH4 & CH5
    Nope. Seems someone understood what I meant :D
    So all former analogue terrestrial channels.
    Yes.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    Ah yes, the famous "I don't like them, so neither can anyone else" defence.

    Where did he say nobody else can enjoy them?I dont understand how you got that from his post:confused:
  • NostalgicNostalgic Posts: 7,156
    Forum Member
    tony-w wrote: »
    That does not makes sense, the TVL is payable regardless of wether you watch BBC or subscribe to Sky/Virgin.
    If those companies disappeared how would that equate to more income for the BBC (considering the TVL is their main source of funding)

    I know it is early, but that just does not make sense to me.

    ITV on the other hand, as a commercial broadcaster could certainly increase ad revenue with viewing figures of 20 million, but would they invest that in new programming or simply just pay larger dividends the shareholders?

    Ah yeah, forgot viewing figures didn't matter on the BBC lol. But didn't TVL budget used to be much bigger? Perhaps cut back on BBC Channels and Radio stations, they have made a start by shutting down BBC Three.

    Come to think of it i don't think ITV would be any better if it had all those viewers again, it may be able to commission more quality programming, but it'll never reach the quality it had with all the regions. If i was CEO of ITV i'd reinstate the regions.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,579
    Forum Member
    Nostlagic wrote: »
    Perhaps cut back on BBC Channels and Radio stations, they have made a start by shutting down BBC Three.
    Or actually increase a "tax" for once (as opposed to the previous 20% cut) then they won't have to even consider shutting down any essential services.
  • petelypetely Posts: 2,994
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Or actually increase a "tax" for once (as opposed to the previous 20% cut) then they won't have to even consider shutting down any essential services.
    Essential? Hardly.
  • Keiō LineKeiō Line Posts: 12,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Limit the number of stations allowed to carry ads.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,579
    Forum Member
    petely wrote: »
    Essential? Hardly.
    Yes essential. Or do you think all 16-34 year-olds (many of which, at the older end of that scale will pay their own TVL) shouldn't be catered for by the country's "state" (for want of a better word) broadcaster?
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes essential. Or do you think all 16-34 year-olds (many of which, at the older end of that scale will pay their own TVL) shouldn't be catered for by the country's "state" (for want of a better word) broadcaster?

    I'm well outside that age range and find quite a few things I enjoy on BBC3. For example, I found Bad Education a lot funnier than Big School.

    "Essential" might be stretching it for ANY channel though. Its only TV.
  • petelypetely Posts: 2,994
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes essential. Or do you think all 16-34 year-olds (many of which, at the older end of that scale will pay their own TVL) shouldn't be catered for by the country's "state" (for want of a better word) broadcaster?
    You must have known, while you were typing this, that is was completely wrong - yet you continued anyway. Oh well.

    TV is not essential. Food is essential. Air is essential. Electricity is essential. TV is entertainment.
    As for 16-34 y/o's: a bogus "group" that doesn't really exist, except in the minds of advertising executives. Yet you would have us believe that this group ALL watch TV and they ONLY watch BBC3. Why else would it be essential - instead of merely an unpopular option that a small proportion of people in that age group ever bother with.

    It's not unreasonable to assume that most teens watch BBC1 more than they watch BBC3. You could say the same about people in their next decade, too. So the idea that this channel "caters for" them is ridiculous: they are just as well "catered for" by all the other BBC channels as everyone one, of every age, is.

    Let's knock this silly notion on the head, shall we? It's only TV.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,579
    Forum Member
    I'm well outside that age range and find quite a few things I enjoy on BBC3.
    Yes. Me too.
    "Essential" might be stretching it for ANY channel though. Its only TV.
    I don't know, though. I think there are more first-world countries who have a TV service of some description; and most of those have a TVL and a 'state broadcaster' of some sort. Heck, even the US has their PSB channel - PBS - even though it is massively under-funded.

    So actually, thinking about it yes, TV is probably "essential". Just not all TV channels ;)
    petely wrote: »
    You must have known, while you were typing this, that is was completely wrong - yet you continued anyway. Oh well.

    TV is not essential. Food is essential. Air is essential. Electricity is essential. TV is entertainment.
    BBC News Channel/Parliament is "entertainment"? Our War, Killed By My Boyfriend and Crimewatch (three random, 'off the top of my head' examples) are "entertainment"? Seriously?

    Also, if "entertainment" isn't essential, why do we have films and theatre and music, etc?
    As for 16-34 y/o's: a bogus "group" that doesn't really exist, except in the minds of advertising executives.
    I think 16-34 years old do exist. I used to be one many years ago :) You were born age 35 I assume? :confused:
    Yet you would have us believe that this group ALL watch TV and they ONLY watch BBC3.
    Please quote the post where I wrote anything even approaching such a ridiculously stupid comment.
    Why else would it be essential - instead of merely an unpopular option that a small proportion of people in that age group ever bother with.
    Assuming that is a statement of fact and not just your opinion (which it does read as such) then you'll surely have the figures to back it up.
    It's not unreasonable to assume that most teens watch BBC1 more than they watch BBC3.
    You can assume whatever you like. I prefer facts for a decent discussion.

    There are a number of posters on here who have regularly mentioned (when this subject has been brought up in the past) that BBC3 is the first channel their teenage children go to and I have no reason to doubt them.
    You could say the same about people in their next decade, too. So the idea that this channel "caters for" them is ridiculous...
    You may well think that. The industry does not.

    For example, ITV are about to launch ITVBe; a channel specifically created to appeal to a certain demographic.
    ...they are just as well "catered for" by all the other BBC channels as everyone one, of every age, is.
    Of course there will be some things on other channels that they will watch. No-one has ever suggested otherwise. Just as there are some things on BBC3 that I (well outside the channel demographic) have happily watched.
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes. Me too.


    I don't know, though. I think there are more first-world countries who have a TV service of some description; and most of those have a TVL and a 'state broadcaster' of some sort. Heck, even the US has their PSB channel - PBS - even though it is massively under-funded.

    So actually, thinking about it yes, TV is probably "essential". Just not all TV channels ;)


    BBC News Channel/Parliament is "entertainment"? Our War, Killed By My Boyfriend and Crimewatch (three random, 'off the top of my head' examples) are "entertainment"? Seriously?

    Also, if "entertainment" isn't essential, why do we have films and theatre and music, etc?


    I think 16-34 years old do exist. I used to be one many years ago :) You were born age 35 I assume? :confused:


    Please quote the post where I wrote anything even approaching such a ridiculously stupid comment.


    Assuming that is a statement of fact and not just your opinion (which it does read as such) then you'll surely have the figures to back it up.


    You can assume whatever you like. I prefer facts for a decent discussion.

    There are a number of posters on here who have regularly mentioned (when this subject has been brought up in the past) that BBC3 is the first channel their teenage children go to and I have no reason to doubt them.


    You may well think that. The industry does not.

    For example, ITV are about to launch ITVBe; a channel specifically created to appeal to a certain demographic.


    Of course there will be some things on other channels that they will watch. No-one has ever suggested otherwise. Just as there are some things on BBC3 that I (well outside the channel demographic) have happily watched.

    You write that you prefer facts, but you also write that TV must be essential because it exists in all first world countries. You know that statement isn't a fact don't you?

    Right now I'm guessing loon bands exist in all first world countries too, are they essential? And what about people that don't have a TV? How do they exist if TV is essential?

    As I started this thread, you can guess that I think Sky channels are far from essential!
  • Omniconsumer93Omniconsumer93 Posts: 735
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You write that you prefer facts, but you also write that TV must be essential because it exists in all first world countries. You know that statement isn't a fact don't you?

    Right now I'm guessing loon bands exist in all first world countries too, are they essential? And what about people that don't have a TV? How do they exist if TV is essential?

    As I started this thread, you can guess that I think Sky channels are far from essential!

    You may want to look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

    Carl is right though, TV is essential. For many people it's the only enjoyment they have, and I know for certain that BBC3 has had a huge effect on 16-34 demographic. That demographic is so important because one day it'll be running the world.

    BBC3 produces amazing content that isn't entertainment, stuff like Free Speech and Stacey Dooley investigates which bring a lot of issues to light for that demographic in a way they can understand. Why shouldn't they have a channel dedicated to them? Why should every news presenter on the BBC be 40+ and boring? That's why BBC3 exists - to provide content for an audience that isn't widely catered to.
  • david kleinfelddavid kleinfeld Posts: 38
    Forum Member
    You may not think it is important but it is one of those things that makes Sky+ utter crap. All of the things that can be done on Sky+ can be done on other PVR's. There is nothing great or unique about it.

    Just wondering, do other PVRs have a similar feature to SkyGo,? I use it to watch live broadcasts and the series box sets on my ipad frequently.
  • bikinibikini Posts: 166
    Forum Member
    i pay for sky only for sport and now boxing is not availible as it is on boxnation.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Just wondering, do other PVRs have a similar feature to SkyGo,? I use it to watch live broadcasts and the series box sets on my ipad frequently.
    Sky Go isn't a PVR so I don't understand your question? As for boxsets the likes of Netflix and Amazon Prime do boxsets and do them alot better. Sky often have episodes missing on their so called boxsets.
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You may want to look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

    Carl is right though, TV is essential. For many people it's the only enjoyment they have.

    TV is not essential. Humans existed for thousands of years without it. It's desirable, no one disputes that, but if anyone thinks they couldn't get by without television that is a pretty desperate state of affairs. As is the contention that television is the only enjoyment some people have.
  • petelypetely Posts: 2,994
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    petely wrote: »
    As for 16-34 y/o's: a bogus "group" that doesn't really exist, except in the minds of advertising executives.
    I think 16-34 years old do exist. I used to be one many years ago :) You were born age 35 I assume? :confused:
    Seriously? You just read random words - missing out the ones that turn a jumble into a sentence? then you attempt to ridicule something that was never said?
    May I suggest a career in politics or maybe writing "comedy" for Sky? (they're much the same)

    As for TV not being essential: I've yet to hear of anyone who died from a lack of it. THAT would make it essential.
  • david kleinfelddavid kleinfeld Posts: 38
    Forum Member
    Sky Go isn't a PVR so I don't understand your question? As for boxsets the likes of Netflix and Amazon Prime do boxsets and do them alot better. Sky often have episodes missing on their so called boxsets.

    I know, sky+ is PVR yes? (or no?) and one of the features is the ability to stream content from your sky to devices in the household (such as ipads/tablets laptops etc) they call that 'SkyGo' sorry for the confusion ! and I just wondered if other PVR does this, it is very handy. I have not noticed any episodes missing from boxsets personally, though I have not watched all of them.
  • david kleinfelddavid kleinfeld Posts: 38
    Forum Member
    Sky Go isn't a PVR so I don't understand your question? As for boxsets the likes of Netflix and Amazon Prime do boxsets and do them alot better. Sky often have episodes missing on their so called boxsets.

    I have netflix too, built in the TV and thats also available to devices in the household, agree netflix is excellent, we did a month free trial of Amazon Prime to guage whether it was worth subscribing and decided it wasnt
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I know, sky+ is PVR yes? (or no?) and one of the features is the ability to stream content from your sky to devices in the household (such as ipads/tablets laptops etc) they call that 'SkyGo' sorry for the confusion ! and I just wondered if other PVR does this, it is very handy. I have not noticed any episodes missing from boxsets personally, though I have not watched all of them.
    Sorry but what is the point of that? Surely it is just as easy to stream from the website?
  • david kleinfelddavid kleinfeld Posts: 38
    Forum Member
    Sorry but what is the point of that? Surely it is just as easy to stream from the website?

    do sky really allow free streaming of their broadcasts? thats exceptionally generous of them! can you tell me how i find out how to do this legally as will save me a few pounds in subscriptions. thanks
Sign In or Register to comment.