9.4 MILLION People CHOOSE to pay SKY....

14849515354156

Comments

  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    I read a great comment on a youtube tv licence video today:

    --
    How can something be unfair but a good way of funding public TV? Ins't the main point that its unfair the only relevant issue? Might as well say slavery is unfair but its a good way of building a country so lets keep it going.

    When there was 1 channel decades ago, it might have been relevant. Now there are thousands of channels not including online.

    I get plenty of public TV from these other channels. This is 2009 and people dont really hold the BBC up like they used to because of choice


    --

    Need I say more???

    LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUqFlgsPi2c
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Yes, of course you need to say more. You can't dip in and out of the thread you started, carefully ignoring many relevant posts arguing against your standpoint, and post new information that doesn't really add much to the debate.

    What are your thoughts on the last few pages?
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    I have commented fully on your post so less of the sarcastic roll-eyes, eh?

    Let me reiterate; your post doesn't add much to the debate.

    You commented only by saying I shouldnt dip in and out. Not sure that really covers commenting fully on all statements I made...but fair enough:cool:
  • PeterBPeterB Posts: 9,487
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Its doesnt catch anyone out, its just always a difference of opinion or another way of interpretating data/trends.

    Nope.

    My opinion yes, but fact remains that 9.4 million people need extra choice. In my book this means the BBC are not worthy of a compulsory licence fee. Yes they may show some good programmes, but thats clearly not enough.

    Other broadcasters are providing and already 9.4 million agree.

    Along with all the people who also have ITV available on their TV.
  • PeterBPeterB Posts: 9,487
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Perhaps, but its still FACT that more people are choosing to watch something other than the BBC:rolleyes:

    Wrong! Choose to watch something else as well as the BBC.

    You are confusing have the means to watch particular channels with actually watching them.

    More than what?

    Get it right!
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    Sover_99 wrote: »
    There's no reason why funding from general taxation can't provide PSB content - which is the whole point. It doesn't matter, or it shouldn't matter, who broadcasts the content as long as it gets made and is readily available.

    However, would we trust the government to allow the taxation to get to the BBC - or would they syphon it off for other thing?

    Or, is it really a fairer way of doing it? You CAN opt out of the current system.
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    PeterB wrote: »
    Along with all the people who also have ITV available on their TV.


    I agree. But thats not the BBC is it.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Perhaps, but its still FACT that more people are choosing to watch something other than the BBC:rolleyes:

    It's a FACT that - even in pay TV homes - BBC1 is the most watched channel.

    So, even after paying hundreds of pounds on additional channels they ARE still watching BBC1 the most.
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    PeterB wrote: »
    Wrong! Choose to watch something else as well as the BBC.

    You are confusing have the means to watch particular channels with actually watching them.

    More than what?

    Get it right!

    No I am not. I am going on official figures. Not means, actual viewing. More people choose to watch something other than the BBC every day and night.

    Ok, the BBC may have the largest number of viewers individually, but the bulk of viewers are looking at something else
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    mikw wrote: »
    It's a FACT that - even in pay TV homes - BBC1 is the most watched channel.

    So, even after paying hundreds of pounds on additional channels they ARE still watching BBC1 the most.

    No its got biggest individual share...but most are watching something else....split over all other channels.

    I think this shows how fickle and unique peoples viewing tastes are.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Steve™ wrote: »
    No I am not. I am going on official figures. Not means, actual viewing. More people choose to watch something other than the BBC every day and night.

    Ok, the BBC may have the largest number of viewers individually, but the bulk of viewers are looking at something else

    With Sky TV, the BBC attracts the highest number of viewers.

    Without Sky TV, the BBC attracts the highest number of viewers.

    TV Licence = NHS (offers the majority of what people want)
    Sky = BUPA (offer fluffy extra stuff)

    With the above analogy, does it mean that we should, in fact, disband the NHS?
  • iainiain Posts: 63,929
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Perhaps, but its still FACT that more people are choosing to watch something other than the BBC:rolleyes:

    only at any a particular time.

    i'm starting to think you genuinely don't understand this simplest of points.

    are you under the impression that 30% watch the BBC, and 70% never watch the BBC?

    people spend more time not at the cinema, than they do at the cinema.

    but that doesn't mean that 'going to the cinema' isn't very popular.

    people spend more time not eating in an indian restaurant than they spend going out for a curry.

    but that doesn't mean that indian food isn't very popular.

    do you understand this?

    if not, can you perhaps say which part you don't understand, and we can try to explain it better.

    Iain :)
  • iainiain Posts: 63,929
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Its doesnt catch anyone out, its just always a difference of opinion or another way of interpretating data/trends.

    Nope.

    My opinion yes, but fact remains that 9.4 million people need extra choice. In my book this means the BBC are not worthy of a compulsory licence fee. Yes they may show some good programmes, but thats clearly not enough.

    Other broadcasters are providing and already 9.4 million agree.

    i'm one of those people (if you include cable that is).

    so does that leave me?

    Iain
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,387
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    However, would we trust the government to allow the taxation to get to the BBC - or would they syphon it off for other thing?

    Or, is it really a fairer way of doing it? You CAN opt out of the current system.

    The spending on quangos has increased from £24Bn in 1998 to over £150Bn so I think it would get its money OK, just as its spending is controlled by the current licence reviews.

    If it's a public service and that important it should be contributed to by all of society for the mutual benefit of all society.

    IMO
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    iain wrote: »
    only at any a particular time.

    i'm starting to think you genuinely don't understand this simplest of points.

    are you under the impression that 30% watch the BBC, and 70% never watch the BBC?

    people spend more time not at the cinema, than they do at the cinema.

    but that doesn't mean that 'going to the cinema' isn't very popular.

    people spend more time not eating in an indian restaurant than they spend going out for a curry.

    but that doesn't mean that indian food isn't very popular.

    do you understand this?

    if not, can you perhaps say which part you don't understand, and we can try to explain it better.

    Iain :)

    Doesnt really matter. Just shows that the compulsory nature of the licence and the varied level of viewing is yet another reason why the licence fee is just forced subscription.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sover_99 wrote: »
    The spending on quangos has increased from £24Bn in 1998 to over £150Bn so I think it would get its money OK, just as its spending is controlled by the current licence reviews.

    If it's a public service and that important it should be contributed to by all of society for the mutual benefit of all society.

    IMO

    Again, do all those who want it pay for it already?
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    iain wrote: »
    i'm one of those people (if you include cable that is).

    so does that leave me?

    Iain


    Aww sweet...desperate to make it personal eh?!

    Sorry, but you are part of the same figures nationwide.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,387
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Again, do all those who want it pay for it already?

    I don't know. Do they? How do those that only listen to the radio contribute?
  • u006852u006852 Posts: 7,283
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »

    My opinion yes, but fact remains that 9.4 million people need extra choice. In my book this means the BBC are not worthy of a compulsory licence fee. Yes they may show some good programmes, but thats clearly not enough.

    Other broadcasters are providing and already 9.4 million agree.

    And around the circle we go again!

    Why does 9.4 million people choosing to supplement the FTA channels mean the BBC isn't worth a LF?

    After all we did establish that these people who have Sky still watch the BBC on average more than anything else.

    The only fact here is that people enjoy extra choice, not that the BBC is not appreciated by them.
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    u006852 wrote: »
    And around the circle we go again!

    Why does 9.4 million people choosing to supplement the FTA channels mean the BBC isn't worth a LF?

    After all we did establish that these people who have Sky still watch the BBC more than anything else.

    The only fact here is that people enjoy extra choice, not that the BBC is not appreciated by them.


    Perhaps, but not appreciated on the level that earns enforced BBC subscription.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Doesnt really matter. Just shows that the compulsory nature of the licence and the varied level of viewing is yet another reason why the licence fee is just forced subscription.

    Doesn't really matter? Correcting incorrect statements doesn't really matter?
  • u006852u006852 Posts: 7,283
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Perhaps, but not appreciated on the level that earns enforced BBC subscription.

    Well, considering that 4% of the channels (BBC) gets about 32% of the viewing then I would disagree with your assertion.

    You are entitled to your opinion of course but shouting it in bold doesn't make it fact.:D
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    u006852 wrote: »
    Well, considering that 4% of the channels (BBC) gets about 32% of the viewing then I would disagree with your assertion.

    You are entitled to your opinion of course but shouting it in bold doesn't make it fact.:D

    4%. How did you reach that conclusion?
  • u006852u006852 Posts: 7,283
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    4%. How did you reach that conclusion?

    BBC channels out of about 240 available.
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    u006852 wrote: »
    BBC channels out of about 240 available.


    Channel list please. I'd love to tune in to those 240 TV channels:rolleyes:
  • u006852u006852 Posts: 7,283
    Forum Member
    Steve™ wrote: »
    Channel list please. I'd love to tune in to those 240 TV channels:rolleyes:

    Go to barb and look for yourself
  • Steve™Steve™ Posts: 7,286
    Forum Member
    u006852 wrote: »
    Go to barb and look for yourself


    So they dont exist then?

    240 TV channels. List please....as I have nowhere near that on my EPG and would love to see what gems are being offered
Sign In or Register to comment.