Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Pauper View


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-07-2012, 16:43
VirginMediaPhil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,972
ONdigital back then was arguably a better service then Freeview is now when it came down to the choice of content, although the way TV content has changed would probably have nothing to do with the downfall of ONdigital.
VirginMediaPhil is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-07-2012, 17:21
Winston_1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,092
[quote=David (2);As i have said before due to lack of digital via an aerial them only freeviewLite after DSO most people here do have sky but many are on min package due to cost.[/QUOTE]

Why is it that so many people in that situation go for a Sky minimum package when they could have Freesat?

I've twice come across Chinese people subscribing to Sky min package to get 1 channel, Phoenix CNE, which is fta anyway.

In both cases they were surprised and grateful when I told them to cancel (it was well out of contract).
Winston_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 18:01
Like_I_care
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 220
I guess you have no idea of the amount real people earn in the real world
What??? In the real world of a working family EG mine the average wage is 26000 a year 2 people working is a combined income of 52000 a year and that's a basic average.
Like_I_care is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 18:32
Bangers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,776
Let's have a look at the Freeview line-up of 'proper' channels then....

BBC 1
BBC 2
BBC 3
BBC 4
BBC News
BBC Parliament
CBBC
CBeebies
ITV1
ITV2
ITV3
ITV4
CITV
Pick TV
Yesterday
Channel 4
More4
Film4
E4
4Music
4Seven
Dave
Really
Viva
Channel 5
5*
5USA
Quest
Challenge
Food Network
Sky News
Russia Today
Al-Jazeera English

I count 33 channels. That doesn't include the HD channels, plus 1 channels, shopping, pay, Community Channel, interactive, text, radio or slapper channels. I'd say that's not too shabby a selection for free.

OK in DSO lite areas there less channels, but still more than the basic 4/5 available in the analogue days.
Bangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 18:33
chrisy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beds (Sandy Heath TX)
Posts: 8,373
What??? In the real world of a working family EG mine the average wage is 26000 a year 2 people working is a combined income of 52000 a year and that's a basic average.
You clearly don't understand averages. For an average of 26000 pa there has to be people earning both more and less than that. A lot of people will be working for minimum wage, which is under 13000 for people working a full week. Once you've factored in tax and normal outgoings (rent/mortgage, bills etc), 55/month is a large sum.

Personally I rarely see anything that is on Sky that interests me, so to pay that amount to end up watching Freeview channels isn't worth it.
chrisy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 19:07
Like_I_care
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 220
You clearly don't understand averages. For an average of 26000 pa there has to be people earning both more and less than that. A lot of people will be working for minimum wage, which is under 13000 for people working a full week. Once you've factored in tax and normal outgoings (rent/mortgage, bills etc), 55/month is a large sum.

Personally I rarely see anything that is on Sky that interests me, so to pay that amount to end up watching Freeview channels isn't worth it.


So for you Sky is not worth it but for me an many many others Sky offers great value at a great price. I guess Sky is a luxury not everyone wants or can afford.
Like_I_care is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 19:19
Kal_El
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 3,885
What??? In the real world of a working family EG mine the average wage is 26000 a year 2 people working is a combined income of 52000 a year and that's a basic average.
Well our wages are nothing like that. I wish!

Regardless, I would not pay for Sky tripe no matter what I was earning.

As an ex-Virgin customer, I reckon Freeview is pretty amazing actually. As Bangers above says, when you take away the fluff channels you are still left with an impressive roster of free programming. I have nothing to complain about, apart from I would like to see Film 4 HD.
Kal_El is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 19:28
Muzer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Andover, Hampshire, UK
Posts: 3,571
So for you Sky is not worth it but for me an many many others Sky offers great value at a great price. I guess Sky is a luxury not everyone wants or can afford.
I am not particuarly thrilled by anything offered on Sky. Sure, it does offer more choice - but nothing deal breaking for me. Free TV is perfectly adequate for me; if I have a day where I just feel like doing nothing (which are rare but occasionally happen!), I can get through the whole day stemming off boredom with free TV, no Sky required

People who are obsessed in sport would like it. As would international viewers, and people who like films. I do like films, but not enough to pay 30 pounds or however much it is per month.
Muzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 20:15
Eston Bleu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 422
I am not particuarly thrilled by anything offered on Sky. Sure, it does offer more choice - but nothing deal breaking for me. Free TV is perfectly adequate for me; if I have a day where I just feel like doing nothing (which are rare but occasionally happen!), I can get through the whole day stemming off boredom with free TV, no Sky required

People who are obsessed in sport would like it. As would international viewers, and people who like films. I do like films, but not enough to pay 30 pounds or however much it is per month.
The thing is, if Sky didn't exist, most of the stuff on it would appear on FTA TV. Especially in the Digital TV age.
Eston Bleu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 21:04
Like_I_care
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 220
The thing is, if Sky didn't exist, most of the stuff on it would appear on FTA TV. Especially in the Digital TV age.

Wishful thinking I'm afraid.

If pay TV didn't exist we would still be watching Crossroads with shaky sets and tiny budget. Back when ITV could charge what it wanted for advertising they still only ever showed 10 year old movies, cheap game shows, etc.

With the digital TV age and 100's of channels to spread the same amount of advertising budgets things would be awful. Infact Freeview is a window to just how things would be.

Even when ITV new it had a potential evening audience of 20 Million it shoved cheap crap on TV. These days channels know they will be lucky to hit a peak time audience of 5 million. Advertisers need to spread the same amount of money over 100 channels not 5.

No pay TV equals awful crap TV. Who do you think would of paid the $1million dollars for pilot episodes of some of the big budget series?
Like_I_care is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 21:27
sparkplugs
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 502
Let's have a look at the Freeview line-up of 'proper' channels then....

BBC 1
BBC 2
BBC 3
BBC 4
BBC News
BBC Parliament
CBBC
CBeebies
ITV1
ITV2
ITV3
ITV4
CITV
Pick TV
Yesterday
Channel 4
More4
Film4
E4
4Music
4Seven
Dave
Really
Viva
Channel 5
5*
5USA
Quest
Challenge
Food Network
Sky News
Russia Today
Al-Jazeera English
If only that list of TV channels plus the HD channels was all that was really available on Freeview!
sparkplugs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 21:29
chrisy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beds (Sandy Heath TX)
Posts: 8,373
Regardless, I would not pay for Sky tripe no matter what I was earning.
if I have a day where I just feel like doing nothing (which are rare but occasionally happen!), I can get through the whole day stemming off boredom with free TV, no Sky required
I agree with all of the above.

People who are obsessed in sport would like it. As would international viewers, and people who like films. I do like films, but not enough to pay 30 pounds or however much it is per month.
It's cheaper to buy the DVDs of the stuff you like on Sky, which is what I do. The bonus being Sky doesn't usually benefit from the DVD sales. Win-win.

(You can also wait for them to filter down to FTA TV, but some things never make it that far)
chrisy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 21:34
chrisy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beds (Sandy Heath TX)
Posts: 8,373
Even when ITV new it had a potential evening audience of 20 Million it shoved cheap crap on TV.
ITV has never been renowned for quality entertainment, and has got steadily worse. However, if Sky didn't exist ITV might not have got into quite so much trouble with onDigital and would be in a better financial situation today.
chrisy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 23:02
Winston_1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,092
Let's have a look at the Freeview line-up of 'proper' channels then....

BBC 1
BBC 2
BBC 3
BBC 4
BBC News
BBC Parliament
CBBC
CBeebies
ITV1
ITV2
ITV3
ITV4
CITV
Pick TV
Yesterday
Channel 4
More4
Film4
E4
4Music
4Seven
Dave
Really
Viva
Channel 5
5*
5USA
Quest
Challenge
Food Network
Sky News
Russia Today
Al-Jazeera English

I count 33 channels. That doesn't include the HD channels, plus 1 channels, shopping, pay, Community Channel, interactive, text, radio or slapper channels. I'd say that's not too shabby a selection for free.

OK in DSO lite areas there less channels, but still more than the basic 4/5 available in the analogue days.
BBC 3 and CBBC are ONE channel split over 2 LCNs at different times of the day. The same applies to BBC 4 and Cbeebies. There are other channel shares, though I'm not sure of their makeup.
Sure as anything there are not 33 channels (streams).
Winston_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 23:10
Winston_1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,092

People who are obsessed in sport would like it. As would international viewers, and people who like films. I do like films, but not enough to pay 30 pounds or however much it is per month.
International viewers? No way, there is mainly only stuff from the Indian sub continent. Plus odd fta channels like NHK and Phoenix CNE which don't require Sky anyway.

French, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, Russian etc, etc are not there. International viewers need dishes on other satellites.
Winston_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 10:36
Badvok
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
What??? In the real world of a working family EG mine the average wage is 26000 a year 2 people working is a combined income of 52000 a year and that's a basic average.
As Chrisy pointed out you obviously don't understand averages, a lot less people earn above average than earn below average. For example, your figure of 26,000 could be one celeb earning over 1m and 38 jobless!
Personally I earn well above average and could easily afford Sky but I know others who would struggle. I don't buy Sky simply because I don't think it is worth it. However if they did PPV for the odd little bits I might want to watch and didn't insist on me using their dodgy hardware I might consider it.
Badvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 10:49
ShaunW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gtr Manchester
Posts: 2,283
The thing is, if Sky didn't exist, most of the stuff on it would appear on FTA TV. Especially in the Digital TV age.
More likely there would be another PayTV operator if Sky did not exist. PayTV is the norm in the Western World.
ShaunW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 10:56
Spot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Norwich, Tacolneston tx
Posts: 20,052
I am probably fortunate in having no great interest in new TV series or movies, and whilst I enjoy watching the big sporting events which are available, if they disappear (like test cricket a few years ago) I just lose interest and have no further desire to follow them.

I can honestly say that all the things I want to watch are available free to air (including some channels which are free on satellite such as CNBC and Bloomberg) and all the things I have no interest in are the ones you have to pay to get. So I have Freeview and a self-installed satellite dish with an old Sky box bought for a tenner from a secondhand shop, and I am very happy with the choice this gives me. Nice position to be in!
Spot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 12:37
Muzer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Andover, Hampshire, UK
Posts: 3,571
International viewers? No way, there is mainly only stuff from the Indian sub continent. Plus odd fta channels like NHK and Phoenix CNE which don't require Sky anyway.

French, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, Russian etc, etc are not there. International viewers need dishes on other satellites.
Sorry, I did know that; I should have said *SOME* international viewers if you're being picky
Muzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 14:02
Bangers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,776
BBC 3 and CBBC are ONE channel split over 2 LCNs at different times of the day. The same applies to BBC 4 and Cbeebies. There are other channel shares, though I'm not sure of their makeup.
Sure as anything there are not 33 channels (streams).
You can split hairs over timeshares, but most of the channels I listed are substantive channels in their own right. If you combine the BBC kids and grown ups channels and deduct Al-Jazeera and CITV you still have 29 services. The majority of time-shared channels are the junk ones people are moaning about.
Bangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 14:03
Bangers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,776
More likely there would be another PayTV operator if Sky did not exist. PayTV is the norm in the Western World.
Exactly. If Sky didn't exist BSB would, the cable companies would still exist and most likely ONdigital would still exist!
Bangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 23:10
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wiltshire
Posts: 15,973
Why is it that so many people in that situation go for a Sky minimum package when they could have Freesat?

I've twice come across Chinese people subscribing to Sky min package to get 1 channel, Phoenix CNE, which is fta anyway.

In both cases they were surprised and grateful when I told them to cancel (it was well out of contract).
Same here, people i know Think sky can turn their tvs off if they stop subdcription . They dont know what freesat or freesatfromsky is. Some dont even know what freeview is! And dont know freeview is already being picked up by their unplugged aerial or untuned set. Cheap or freesetup from sky is very tempting as they cant afford 300 pounds upfront charge for equipment or new digital monster aerial (yes i know but they dont which is my point)
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 23:17
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wiltshire
Posts: 15,973
What??? In the real world of a working family EG mine the average wage is 26000 a year 2 people working is a combined income of 52000 a year and that's a basic average.
Most people i know are on 13.5k-17.0k per year and this is reflected in the job pay in this area. Many will never see 52k in their entire lifetime. Pensions are uncommon due to cost, as is private dental/health care. Only 1 car per household as well (hatchback, supermini-i have a not too old polo tdi and people Think this is upmarket
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2012, 01:25
gomezz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 22,782
As Chrisy pointed out you obviously don't understand averages, a lot less people earn above average than earn below average. For example, your figure of 26,000 could be one celeb earning over 1m and 38 jobless!
Not really. For a highly skewed distribution like earnings it is usual to quote the median average which means that exactly half the people will earn less than it and exactly half more than it. Your comment only applies to the mean average.
gomezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2012, 10:12
Badvok
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
Not really. For a highly skewed distribution like earnings it is usual to quote the median average which means that exactly half the people will earn less than it and exactly half more than it. Your comment only applies to the mean average.
Don't know where you went to school but I've never heard of a 'Median Average' is that an Americanism of some kind?
In common English and in current GCSE Maths/Science 'Mean' and 'Average' are synonyms and 'Median' is a separate statistical value.
Badvok is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:39.