Privatization and liberation, as we have learned, don't go hand in hand, despite what we hear from it's proponents.
In fact, today you could say that privatization and the slow destruction of public services and public values is reversing the struggles of our ancestors who fought for a better life, but too many people are so brainwashed they can't see it - or they don't, can't, or won't care.
The point he makes about culture and competition co-existing needs to be looked at closer, as history suggests it wouldn't go that way. Instead it would be about instant gratification and more of the mindless entertainment we have enough of already - either that or it would be just for those who can afford it.
10? I never really watched much anyway, mainly Dr who and the F1, it was BBc getting rid of the F!, flogging it to sky that was the last straw for me, which is why I decided i decided not to pay for the licence any more.
Sure there was other stuff on the BEEB i would watch, like have i got news for you, but I did not watch it every week. But paying £145 a month just for something i may watch now and again was stupid.
I watch more on Netflix, than I ever watched on Tv, sure some of it is old, but a lot I have never seen. I can just switch on the TV, and the Ps3 and choose what I want to watch.
Even on the UK version there is stuff that will keep me going for a while.
Netflix is not perfect, but it suits me far better than paying £145 a year to the BBc.
I asked what are your 10 favourite must watch TV programmes and how much would pay to watch them, the question was not related to the BBC.
You are comparing a library with a broadcaster, a significant difference.
In 2013 I believe there were 11 episodes of Doctor Who, 20 episodes of 'Have I got News for you' and 9 or 10 Grand Prixs, which works out at roughly for you £3.60 per programme.
If a Grand Prix lasts 2hrs that works out at about 3p per minute, compared to 33p a minute to fly by RyanAir from Birmingham to Dublin.
To read some comments you'd think certain people believe they've bought the rights to a programme with their £145.50.
It might be 17 years old but it says a hell of a lot about where we are.
Only very generally - it's the usual left-wing agenda, from what I can see. Overall, Canada in 1997 is a long way from the UK in 2014.
Well fine - If you want to see the world completely dominated by commercial interests carry on as you are. I, on the other hand, would rather not live in a dog eat dog environment where everything is race to the bottom and people get chewed up and spat out. The alternative is a government that cares about the common good and public services that reflect that, which isn't the kind of government people are so fed up with today.
Not at all. I just respect the elections that we have here where the people get to choose what form of Government they want. Let Labour or Respect or whoever make the case for a far-left Government and see who's interested.
Not at all. I just respect the elections that we have here where the people get to choose what form of Government they want. Let Labour or Respect or whoever make the case for a far-left Government and see who's interested.
Me too, and I value participatory democracy.
Just be aware that the ruling class who favour a neoliberal agenda are out to divide and conquer people.
Apparently, Channel 5 do "a lot of good Public Service programming". Anyone ever seen any?
I like the bit right near the end. Jo asks "Which services would you cut?" and Nick replies that he would cut the ones he couldn't sustain. That would the PSB stuff that they can't monetise by selling commercially, then!!
So Nick Ross says a subscription service would "liberate" the BBC, is that like when the fox is "liberated" by blood-thirsty hounds?
No way could a subscription service be the same as the current BBC. There are simply not enough people who would choose to subscribe. Income would be less than half.
This is not a condemnation of the BBC, after all almost no one would choose to pay income tax if they could legally "opt-out" of a contribution.
Nick Ross seems to have forgotten what a public service broadcaster is!
Yes, i think we all know that the BBC could make more money by commercialising and making more populist content - but this isn't what the BBC is really about.
It's making entertainment programming, and the other non-lucrative stuff.
So, his argument is good for business, but nothing else.
Yes, and I could volunteer to play centre forward for Manchester United. We know for certain that any attempt to volunteer for BARB will be turned down,
Not true, i KNOW of people on the Barb panel who've applied. They replace like for like people when they drop off the panel.
Still you cling to this. It was subsequently shown that they offered a long term deal, a link confirming it was posted, you even commented on it and without admitting you were wrong at least acknowledged it was a long term deal they offered. Because no TV station would be stupid enough to make the significant financial commitment to cover a complicated sport like F1 knowing they could only do so for one year.
Like i said, it was the wrong way round, they couldn't commit.
We've been waiting for more than two years. I suppose it is somewhat more plausible for this season they'd show it in Australia with Kylie as judge. However, they have their own version (the upcoming season of which I see Kylie is already signed up for, and Will.i.am.), the UK one is fairly unremarkable and as far as I am aware has been sold to precisely no overseas markets, the previous UK seasons have produced no-mark winners who vanished without trace 10 minutes after the programme ended (in fact, didn't the live tour they planned get cancelled due to lack of interest?), so I'd be surprised if they did. But as a noted industry expert I suppose your word remains as authentic as ever on the subject.
Kylie as a judge, now you're getting there, there is a "sell on clause" in the contract, much like Cowell's shows have around the world.
Really, the amount of fame contestants receive is pretty irrelevant. The show has become a ratings banker, which is success enough in itself.
If you'd care to show where I did, be my guest. I am quite sure the Mail does pick on the BBC, often very unfairly. Sometimes I happen to agree with some of their views on the subject.
You were responding to me in one of the many millions of posts we've debated.
It's obvious you were twisting, everyone knows the DM have an anti-BBC agenda, i almost choked on my cornflakes when you said "Show me a story to prove it!" - or words to that effect.
It's something you've done recently by, consistently,arguing against the difference between "free to air" and "paywall" - it's obvious there's a difference and a number of other posters have pointed this out.
Not true, i KNOW of people on the Barb panel who've applied. They replace like for like people when they drop off the panel.
I contacted BARB (sad, I know), asked them if one could volunteer to be on the panel. They wrote back and said, no, you can't, I posted that response on these forums. What more evidence could you possibly require? But we're supposed to go on the word of unspecified individuals (interesting how it's apparently now multiple people, before it was just one) you claim to know. I'm surprised the evil forces of Sky and the Mail don't get a couple of thousand employees to volunteer for BARB, leave their TV's constantly on a Sky or ITV channel, and skew the viewing figures in their favour to bring down the noble Beeb.
Kylie as a judge, now you're getting there, there is a "sell on clause" in the contract, much like Cowell's shows have around the world.
Really, the amount of fame contestants receive is pretty irrelevant. The show has become a ratings banker, which is success enough in itself.
Great, and in two years, in approximately how many overseas countries is the UK version of The Voice shown? Give us a round number. You specifically insisted two years ago you had "inside knowledge" that a deal had been struck to show the programme overseas, including Australia. Which, it would appear, was completely incorrect.
It's something you've done recently by, consistently,arguing against the difference between "free to air" and "paywall" - it's obvious there's a difference and a number of other posters have pointed this out.
I was pointing out that the term "free to air" is something of a misnomer. Yes, technically you can receive the TV pictures, but if you watch live TV in the UK and don't pay for a TV licence, you are breaking the law.
Anyway, debating anything with you is clearly a waste of time. You consistently refuse to admit when you're wrong when it has been clearly proven that you are. Here's a hint, we all make mistakes on this forum from time to time, just admit when you do, it actually enhances one's overall credibility. You regularly misrepresent what other people have written, and when asked to cite earlier posts to which you are making reference to prove your point, you fail to do so.
There are simply not enough people who would choose to subscribe. Income would be less than half.
What's this prediction based on?
Are you assuming that the subscription would cost the same as the licence fee does now?
I think the BBC would get a lot of subscribers - maybe two thirds of households or more. (Even more if they had a voluntary contribution towards radio).
If we believe your estimate, though, it doesn't say much for the present licence fee if half the population is forced into it.
I asked what are your 10 favourite must watch TV programmes and how much would pay to watch them, the question was not related to the BBC.
You are comparing a library with a broadcaster, a significant difference.
In 2013 I believe there were 11 episodes of Doctor Who, 20 episodes of 'Have I got News for you' and 9 or 10 Grand Prixs, which works out at roughly for you £3.60 per programme.
If a Grand Prix lasts 2hrs that works out at about 3p per minute, compared to 33p a minute to fly by RyanAir from Birmingham to Dublin.
To read some comments you'd think certain people believe they've bought the rights to a programme with their £145.50.
I think the library system is a better way, never used to I must admit. When Netflix announced they was coming to the Uk, I thought it would be a waste of time since our broadband in the Uk was not that great, FTTc was very few and far between then and the chance of use getting it here for years was pretty slim.
But i did a trial and was pretty impressed, since at that time I was getting around 3Mb/s on ADSL and yet the quality was still fine, better than some of the channels on our so called great digital TV service.
When I found out about the broadband service i use now and it was available in the city, I went for it as i would save money and still get a couple of of Megabits extra in speed, that made a difference again to Netflix. even better quality. Of cause if i wanted to download anything on the computer at the same time then things would go pear shape.
I then upped to what I am on now 10Mb/s and Netflix quality is very good, better than what the BBc can do.
The grand prix is mainly recorded now and only highlights at that, just a few live races and that was the main reason I decided to scrap my Tv licence, kind of like my boycott of the BBC. Dr Who, while I like Dr Who, I still don't think it is worth paying a £145 a year for.
HIGNFY, I watched it when I remembered to, I did set the PVR to record them, but I never got around to watching them, so my PVR was filling up with HIGNFY and not being watched.
No doubt I could go into a TV listing and think yes I might watch that, I might watch this, but I hardly did, because to be honest I just watched these things because they was on, not because I really wanted to. Looking at the TV guide for today, there is nothing on there that jumps out at me that I would really must watch. HIGNFY is on tonight and yes I enjoy it when I did watch it, but i would not rush home to watch it.
I don't believe I've bought the rights to a programme for £145.50, but I do like to think that I get something for my money, but I don't believe that the £145.50 that they want me to pay is value for money. I believe the £71.81 I pay for netflix is better value for money for me.
What annoys me is people who have no idea about the law that goes with the TV licence and seems to think I am breaking it by not having a Tv licence. Yesterday at work at lunch time our group was talking about something on TV, to do with work and I said iI would not watch it as I don't have a Tv licence, which came back the reply, so you don't have a Tv? After telling them that yes I do have a Tv, but it is not used to watch Tv as it is being broadcasted and only used for Netflix and DVD, it still took them ages to realise i was right and only after someone else said i was.
Then they said that the law was wrong as they have to pay a TV licence, so should I.
i gave up at that point.
Anyway this new civil law thing seems like it is going to happen, a good job too.
I think the library system is a better way, never used to I must admit. When Netflix announced they was coming to the Uk, I thought it would be a waste of time since our broadband in the Uk was not that great, FTTc was very few and far between then and the chance of use getting it here for years was pretty slim.
But i did a trial and was pretty impressed, since at that time I was getting around 3Mb/s on ADSL and yet the quality was still fine, better than some of the channels on our so called great digital TV service.
When I found out about the broadband service i use now and it was available in the city, I went for it as i would save money and still get a couple of of Megabits extra in speed, that made a difference again to Netflix. even better quality. Of cause if i wanted to download anything on the computer at the same time then things would go pear shape.
I then upped to what I am on now 10Mb/s and Netflix quality is very good, better than what the BBc can do.
The grand prix is mainly recorded now and only highlights at that, just a few live races and that was the main reason I decided to scrap my Tv licence, kind of like my boycott of the BBC. Dr Who, while I like Dr Who, I still don't think it is worth paying a £145 a year for.
HIGNFY, I watched it when I remembered to, I did set the PVR to record them, but I never got around to watching them, so my PVR was filling up with HIGNFY and not being watched.
No doubt I could go into a TV listing and think yes I might watch that, I might watch this, but I hardly did, because to be honest I just watched these things because they was on, not because I really wanted to. Looking at the TV guide for today, there is nothing on there that jumps out at me that I would really must watch. HIGNFY is on tonight and yes I enjoy it when I did watch it, but i would not rush home to watch it.
I don't believe I've bought the rights to a programme for £145.50, but I do like to think that I get something for my money, but I don't believe that the £145.50 that they want me to pay is value for money. I believe the £71.81 I pay for netflix is better value for money for me.
What annoys me is people who have no idea about the law that goes with the TV licence and seems to think I am breaking it by not having a Tv licence. Yesterday at work at lunch time our group was talking about something on TV, to do with work and I said iI would not watch it as I don't have a Tv licence, which came back the reply, so you don't have a Tv? After telling them that yes I do have a Tv, but it is not used to watch Tv as it is being broadcasted and only used for Netflix and DVD, it still took them ages to realise i was right and only after someone else said i was.
Then they said that the law was wrong as they have to pay a TV licence, so should I.
i gave up at that point.
Anyway this new civil law thing seems like it is going to happen, a good job too.
That's very good but you should be comapring the value for money you get from Netflix to the value for money you might get from say a Sky Movies package.
Netflix is not comparable to what a PSB (arguably the best and most well known in the world) offers.
That's very good but you should be comapring the value for money you get from Netflix to the value for money you might get from say a Sky Movies package.
Why? I don't want Sky movies and to get Sky movies you need to have other sky packages and a TV licence, something I don't need with Netflix
Netflix is not comparable to what a PSB (arguably the best and most well known in the world) offers.
The best in your opinion and yes I agree the most well known, but only because they expanded their commercial operations to other countries. I wonder how many people in other countries know that the BBC is a PSB in this country? The BBC is not that important to be honest, it is just another TV channel with a big Ego. ok, the people that runs it got big Egos.
I compare Netlfix to the BBc because it offers what I want for a lower price than what i would pay to access the BBC.
I got fed up of them wasting our money, I got fed up of them broadcasting charity stuff and being a advertiser for the National lottery, a private company that is advertsie ont eh BBc, so much for the no advertising rule.
i don't want to pay anything towards the BBC directly any more. We don't the BBc and it is a out dated service.
Why? I don't want Sky movies and to get Sky movies you need to have other sky packages and a TV licence, something I don't need with Netflix
The best in your opinion and yes I agree the most well known, but only because they expanded their commercial operations to other countries. I wonder how many people in other countries know that the BBC is a PSB in this country? The BBC is not that important to be honest, it is just another TV channel with a big Ego. ok, the people that runs it got big Egos.
I compare Netlfix to the BBc because it offers what I want for a lower price than what i would pay to access the BBC.
I got fed up of them wasting our money, I got fed up of them broadcasting charity stuff and being a advertiser for the National lottery, a private company that is advertsie ont eh BBc, so much for the no advertising rule.
i don't want to pay anything towards the BBC directly any more. We don't the BBc and it is a out dated service.
Try finding another PSB that can maintain the high production of the beebs journalism, nature documentaries and arts programming. (Although Arte where I am is good but that's two countries)
The conten t on Netflix is not analogous with that of a PSB but more a cable package.
Old films like Serpico and Silence of the Lambs? wow. The best film on offer IMHO is Doctor Strangelove but I have that on DVD. New series of Pokemon...gripping stuff
I wonder how Ross would feel about BBC funding if he still had presenting gigs on BBC Television? ;-)
I'm sure he's open to a change of opinion if he has a sniff of a comeback, just like Noel did in 2007 when a house Party revival was being considered and he called them Best Broadcasting Corporation
I contacted BARB (sad, I know), asked them if one could volunteer to be on the panel. They wrote back and said, no, you can't, I posted that response on these forums. What more evidence could you possibly require? But we're supposed to go on the word of unspecified individuals (interesting how it's apparently now multiple people, before it was just one) you claim to know. I'm surprised the evil forces of Sky and the Mail don't get a couple of thousand employees to volunteer for BARB, leave their TV's constantly on a Sky or ITV channel, and skew the viewing figures in their favour to bring down the noble Beeb.
They select people who are interested and stick you on the panel if a like for like household drops off.
And your proof of that is? Has a UK TV company ever entered into a one year contract for F1 rights? Would it make any sense for them to do so?
Ch4 Couldn't commit long term, and Bernie wanted long term.
Great, and in two years, in approximately how many overseas countries is the UK version of The Voice shown? Give us a round number. You specifically insisted two years ago you had "inside knowledge" that a deal had been struck to show the programme overseas, including Australia. Which, it would appear, was completely incorrect.
A lot more accurate than your lengendary "hendro hunches" - watch this space.
I was pointing out that the term "free to air" is something of a misnomer. Yes, technically you can receive the TV pictures, but if you watch live TV in the UK and don't pay for a TV licence, you are breaking the law.
I do believe you tried to insinuate there wasn't a difference between the two, and i wasn't the only poster to pull you up on it,
Anyway, debating anything with you is clearly a waste of time. You consistently refuse to admit when you're wrong when it has been clearly proven that you are. Here's a hint, we all make mistakes on this forum from time to time, just admit when you do, it actually enhances one's overall credibility. You regularly misrepresent what other people have written, and when asked to cite earlier posts to which you are making reference to prove your point, you fail to do so.
Did i not say i got the Channel 4 information "the wrong way round" only a few posts ago?
When have you ever admitted you're wrong?
You've been given enough chances over the free to air issues and that the DM have the anti-BBC agenda.
Instead you have just twisted and dug a hole, so please don't lecture me about not admitting things, thanks,
A lot more accurate than your lengendary "hendro hunches" - watch this space
I'd take them against the musings from the land of mikbelieve any day of the week. On that subject, I'm still waiting for an answer, how many overseas countries, have, to date, shown an episode of the UK version of The Voice?
And are you stating that a deal for the rights to show the UK version overseas is imminent? They'd better hurry up, the current season is almost over, I think. Would take all the drama out if every one knows whose won, wouldn't it?
I wrote there was no way UEFA would go with BT for the Champions League rights, was completely wrong, and conceded as much at least twice. I'm surprised for someone who appears to monitor my every post you missed that.
Government defeated over TV licence fee decriminalisation
The government has been defeated in the House of Lords over changes to the television licence fee rules.
Peers narrowly voted that there should be no move to decriminalise non-payment of the fee before 2017.
Ministers want to keep open the option of making a change when an independent review reports in the summer.
The BBC has said decriminalisation could cost it up to £200m a year, warning channels may have to be closed as a result.
Last year, MPs backed plans to give the government power to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee, currently £145.50 a year for a colour television.
But in the Lords, a cross-party amendment, preventing any change before the next licence fee settlement begins in April 2017, was approved by 178 to 175.
Conservative peer Lord Grade of Yarmouth, a former chairman of the BBC, said he was "deeply concerned" about the uncertain effect of decriminalisation on the BBC's budget.
He said he would "love" to see the licence fee decriminalised, but added: "There are risks the enemies of the BBC will see it as an opportunity to then move the compulsory element of the licence fee and move the BBC to a subscription model which would completely undermine the whole concept of public service broadcasting."
The vote amends the Deregulation Bill, which will now go back to the House of Commons.
Although the Commons could still vote to remove that amendment (and the Bill would then go back to the Lords .....).
But would the Government risk a delay knowing that Parliamentary time is limited and that any Bills not agreed before Parliament is prorogued would be lost unless agreement could be obtained to carry them over?
Although the Commons could still vote to remove that amendment (and the Bill would then go back to the Lords .....).
But would the Government risk a delay knowing that Parliamentary time is limited and that any Bills not agreed before Parliament is prorogued would be lost unless agreement could be obtained to carry them over?
Indeed. Also, in attempting to remove the amendment, the Government could be seen as pre-empting the conclusions of their "independent review".
Comments
I'm confused - is that a spoof, a delayed April Fools' joke, is he being ironic to make a point, or is he serious?
Privatization and liberation, as we have learned, don't go hand in hand, despite what we hear from it's proponents.
In fact, today you could say that privatization and the slow destruction of public services and public values is reversing the struggles of our ancestors who fought for a better life, but too many people are so brainwashed they can't see it - or they don't, can't, or won't care.
The point he makes about culture and competition co-existing needs to be looked at closer, as history suggests it wouldn't go that way. Instead it would be about instant gratification and more of the mindless entertainment we have enough of already - either that or it would be just for those who can afford it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04011fl/daily-politics-02042014
from 1h14m56s.
A point that wasn't raised was how to do the technical stuff...
K
I asked what are your 10 favourite must watch TV programmes and how much would pay to watch them, the question was not related to the BBC.
You are comparing a library with a broadcaster, a significant difference.
In 2013 I believe there were 11 episodes of Doctor Who, 20 episodes of 'Have I got News for you' and 9 or 10 Grand Prixs, which works out at roughly for you £3.60 per programme.
If a Grand Prix lasts 2hrs that works out at about 3p per minute, compared to 33p a minute to fly by RyanAir from Birmingham to Dublin.
To read some comments you'd think certain people believe they've bought the rights to a programme with their £145.50.
Not at all. I just respect the elections that we have here where the people get to choose what form of Government they want. Let Labour or Respect or whoever make the case for a far-left Government and see who's interested.
Me too, and I value participatory democracy.
Just be aware that the ruling class who favour a neoliberal agenda are out to divide and conquer people.
I like the bit right near the end. Jo asks "Which services would you cut?" and Nick replies that he would cut the ones he couldn't sustain. That would the PSB stuff that they can't monetise by selling commercially, then!!
So he really doesn't have a clue!
No way could a subscription service be the same as the current BBC. There are simply not enough people who would choose to subscribe. Income would be less than half.
This is not a condemnation of the BBC, after all almost no one would choose to pay income tax if they could legally "opt-out" of a contribution.
Yes, i think we all know that the BBC could make more money by commercialising and making more populist content - but this isn't what the BBC is really about.
It's making entertainment programming, and the other non-lucrative stuff.
So, his argument is good for business, but nothing else.
Not true, i KNOW of people on the Barb panel who've applied. They replace like for like people when they drop off the panel.
Like i said, it was the wrong way round, they couldn't commit.
Kylie as a judge, now you're getting there, there is a "sell on clause" in the contract, much like Cowell's shows have around the world.
Really, the amount of fame contestants receive is pretty irrelevant. The show has become a ratings banker, which is success enough in itself.
You were responding to me in one of the many millions of posts we've debated.
It's obvious you were twisting, everyone knows the DM have an anti-BBC agenda, i almost choked on my cornflakes when you said "Show me a story to prove it!" - or words to that effect.
It's something you've done recently by, consistently,arguing against the difference between "free to air" and "paywall" - it's obvious there's a difference and a number of other posters have pointed this out.
I contacted BARB (sad, I know), asked them if one could volunteer to be on the panel. They wrote back and said, no, you can't, I posted that response on these forums. What more evidence could you possibly require? But we're supposed to go on the word of unspecified individuals (interesting how it's apparently now multiple people, before it was just one) you claim to know. I'm surprised the evil forces of Sky and the Mail don't get a couple of thousand employees to volunteer for BARB, leave their TV's constantly on a Sky or ITV channel, and skew the viewing figures in their favour to bring down the noble Beeb.
And your proof of that is? Has a UK TV company ever entered into a one year contract for F1 rights? Would it make any sense for them to do so?
Great, and in two years, in approximately how many overseas countries is the UK version of The Voice shown? Give us a round number. You specifically insisted two years ago you had "inside knowledge" that a deal had been struck to show the programme overseas, including Australia. Which, it would appear, was completely incorrect.
I was pointing out that the term "free to air" is something of a misnomer. Yes, technically you can receive the TV pictures, but if you watch live TV in the UK and don't pay for a TV licence, you are breaking the law.
Anyway, debating anything with you is clearly a waste of time. You consistently refuse to admit when you're wrong when it has been clearly proven that you are. Here's a hint, we all make mistakes on this forum from time to time, just admit when you do, it actually enhances one's overall credibility. You regularly misrepresent what other people have written, and when asked to cite earlier posts to which you are making reference to prove your point, you fail to do so.
What's this prediction based on?
Are you assuming that the subscription would cost the same as the licence fee does now?
I think the BBC would get a lot of subscribers - maybe two thirds of households or more. (Even more if they had a voluntary contribution towards radio).
If we believe your estimate, though, it doesn't say much for the present licence fee if half the population is forced into it.
I think the library system is a better way, never used to I must admit. When Netflix announced they was coming to the Uk, I thought it would be a waste of time since our broadband in the Uk was not that great, FTTc was very few and far between then and the chance of use getting it here for years was pretty slim.
But i did a trial and was pretty impressed, since at that time I was getting around 3Mb/s on ADSL and yet the quality was still fine, better than some of the channels on our so called great digital TV service.
When I found out about the broadband service i use now and it was available in the city, I went for it as i would save money and still get a couple of of Megabits extra in speed, that made a difference again to Netflix. even better quality. Of cause if i wanted to download anything on the computer at the same time then things would go pear shape.
I then upped to what I am on now 10Mb/s and Netflix quality is very good, better than what the BBc can do.
The grand prix is mainly recorded now and only highlights at that, just a few live races and that was the main reason I decided to scrap my Tv licence, kind of like my boycott of the BBC. Dr Who, while I like Dr Who, I still don't think it is worth paying a £145 a year for.
HIGNFY, I watched it when I remembered to, I did set the PVR to record them, but I never got around to watching them, so my PVR was filling up with HIGNFY and not being watched.
No doubt I could go into a TV listing and think yes I might watch that, I might watch this, but I hardly did, because to be honest I just watched these things because they was on, not because I really wanted to. Looking at the TV guide for today, there is nothing on there that jumps out at me that I would really must watch. HIGNFY is on tonight and yes I enjoy it when I did watch it, but i would not rush home to watch it.
I don't believe I've bought the rights to a programme for £145.50, but I do like to think that I get something for my money, but I don't believe that the £145.50 that they want me to pay is value for money. I believe the £71.81 I pay for netflix is better value for money for me.
What annoys me is people who have no idea about the law that goes with the TV licence and seems to think I am breaking it by not having a Tv licence. Yesterday at work at lunch time our group was talking about something on TV, to do with work and I said iI would not watch it as I don't have a Tv licence, which came back the reply, so you don't have a Tv? After telling them that yes I do have a Tv, but it is not used to watch Tv as it is being broadcasted and only used for Netflix and DVD, it still took them ages to realise i was right and only after someone else said i was.
Then they said that the law was wrong as they have to pay a TV licence, so should I.
i gave up at that point.
Anyway this new civil law thing seems like it is going to happen, a good job too.
Netflix is not comparable to what a PSB (arguably the best and most well known in the world) offers.
Why? I don't want Sky movies and to get Sky movies you need to have other sky packages and a TV licence, something I don't need with Netflix
The best in your opinion and yes I agree the most well known, but only because they expanded their commercial operations to other countries. I wonder how many people in other countries know that the BBC is a PSB in this country? The BBC is not that important to be honest, it is just another TV channel with a big Ego. ok, the people that runs it got big Egos.
I compare Netlfix to the BBc because it offers what I want for a lower price than what i would pay to access the BBC.
I got fed up of them wasting our money, I got fed up of them broadcasting charity stuff and being a advertiser for the National lottery, a private company that is advertsie ont eh BBc, so much for the no advertising rule.
i don't want to pay anything towards the BBC directly any more. We don't the BBc and it is a out dated service.
The conten t on Netflix is not analogous with that of a PSB but more a cable package.
http://www.vulture.com/2014/03/netflix-streaming-new-best-march-2014.html
Old films like Serpico and Silence of the Lambs? wow. The best film on offer IMHO is Doctor Strangelove but I have that on DVD. New series of Pokemon...gripping stuff
They select people who are interested and stick you on the panel if a like for like household drops off.
Ch4 Couldn't commit long term, and Bernie wanted long term.
A lot more accurate than your lengendary "hendro hunches" - watch this space.
I do believe you tried to insinuate there wasn't a difference between the two, and i wasn't the only poster to pull you up on it,
Did i not say i got the Channel 4 information "the wrong way round" only a few posts ago?
When have you ever admitted you're wrong?
You've been given enough chances over the free to air issues and that the DM have the anti-BBC agenda.
Instead you have just twisted and dug a hole, so please don't lecture me about not admitting things, thanks,
Rubbish, they select homes at random.
http://www.barb.co.uk/resources/reference-documents/faq?_s=4
"Q - Can I join the BARB panel?"
A - You cannot volunteer to join the panel. Panel households are selected randomly...."
I'd take them against the musings from the land of mikbelieve any day of the week. On that subject, I'm still waiting for an answer, how many overseas countries, have, to date, shown an episode of the UK version of The Voice?
And are you stating that a deal for the rights to show the UK version overseas is imminent? They'd better hurry up, the current season is almost over, I think. Would take all the drama out if every one knows whose won, wouldn't it?
I pointed out that "free to air" is something of a misnomer, for reasons I have already explained many times previously.
No, you wrote "it (ie Channel 4) was the wrong way round".
I wrote there was no way UEFA would go with BT for the Champions League rights, was completely wrong, and conceded as much at least twice. I'm surprised for someone who appears to monitor my every post you missed that.
I just wrote about five posts ago that I agree the Mail are often very unfair towards the BBC, what more do you want?
Time for Saj to resign. He's broken as a Culture Secretary now.
But would the Government risk a delay knowing that Parliamentary time is limited and that any Bills not agreed before Parliament is prorogued would be lost unless agreement could be obtained to carry them over?