[VirginMediaPhil]

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.

[Winston_1]

[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).

[Like_I_care]

Originally Posted by Badvok

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.

[Bangers]

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.

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

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.

[Like_I_care]

Originally Posted by chrisy

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.

[Kal_El]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

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.

[Muzer]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

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.

[Eston Bleu]

Originally Posted by Muzer

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.

[Like_I_care]

Originally Posted by Eston Bleu

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?

[sparkplugs]

Originally Posted by Bangers

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!

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by Kal_El

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

Originally Posted by Muzer

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]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

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.

[Winston_1]

Originally Posted by Bangers

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]

Originally Posted by Muzer

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.

[Badvok]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

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.

[ShaunW]

Originally Posted by Eston Bleu

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.

[Spot]

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!

[Muzer]

Originally Posted by Winston_1

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

[Bangers]

Originally Posted by Winston_1

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]

Originally Posted by ShaunW

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!

[David (2)]

Originally Posted by Winston_1

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)]

Originally Posted by Like_I_care

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

[gomezz]

Originally Posted by Badvok

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.

[Badvok]

Originally Posted by gomezz

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.