[chrisy]

Originally Posted by Badvok

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.

Mean, Median and Mode are different kinds of averages.

If the figure quoted is the median rather than the mean, then it still means there are an awful lot of people earning less than that, so I think the point still stands.

[TelevisionUser]

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.

I'd also be inclined to add BBC auxiliary channel 301, Bangers, because that channel shows sport and entertainment content not shown on the other BBC channels.

That brings the Freeview unique channel total to 34 channels as compared with the 19 of the TNT French equivalent so Freeview has 79% more channels than TNT and that's not bad going.

That's not to denigrate the TNT service because it has a fair range of good channels but just that Freeview definitely has more of them.

[gomezz]

Originally Posted by Badvok

In common English and in current GCSE Maths/Science 'Mean' and 'Average' are synonyms and 'Median' is a separate statistical value.

Nope. Must be a misconception taught at the types of school more common people went to. But I will pass on your comments to the professor of statistics at my alma mater for his consideration.

[Muzer]

At my school (only a few years ago, I'm 17 right now), we learnt that mean, median and mode are types of average (presumably the correct one).

[Winston_1]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

That brings the Freeview unique channel total to 34 channels

No it does not as I explained in post 64.

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by Muzer

At my school (only a few years ago, I'm 17 right now), we learnt that mean, median and mode are types of average (presumably the correct one).

Same here, and I'm a "common person", although I was at school... well, your entire lifetime ago

[Luis Essex]

Even just considering mean, median and mode averages can be too simplistic. ‘Mean average’ usually means ‘arithmetic mean average’, but sometimes either ‘geometric mean average’ or even ‘harmonic mean average’ is more appropriate.
...

[gomezz]

For me in this case, can pay but won't pay is what mean means for me.

[Muzer]

Originally Posted by Luis Essex

Even just considering mean, median and mode averages can be too simplistic. ‘Mean average’ usually means ‘arithmetic mean average’, but sometimes either ‘geometric mean average’ or even ‘harmonic mean average’ is more appropriate.
...

Indeed, but the statement put forward was that mean is a synonym to average and median is not a type of average, which is incorrect. No need to complicate things further

But yeah, average is used (incorrectly, or at the very least ambiguously) as a synonym for mean quite a lot in normal use, even in Excel which should know better...

[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

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.

I wouldn't consider 4Seven to be a 'proper' TV channel!

[Bangers]

Originally Posted by Winston_1

No it does not as I explained in post 64.

I provided a rebuttle to your message in post 70.

[Winston_1]

Originally Posted by Bangers

I provided a rebuttle to your message in post 70.

Where you said:

If you combine the BBC kids and grown ups channels and deduct Al-Jazeera and CITV you still have 29 services.

29 +1 does not equal 34.

[Bangers]

Yes, that's right. But as I said, you are splitting hairs.

[David (2)]

ok, so wether you have all the freeview channels or just freeviewLite, it looks poor when compared with Freesat at the moment - this being the 24 extra BBC Olympic channels. Surely, if your really into this event satellite has to be the way to go, period.

On a wider note, if BBC can launch all those extra channels on satellite, why are we making do at all with *Pauper Vew*? Wont this just highlight how far behind freeview is?

O yes, not forgetting the res reduction on some freeview bbc channels right now, in order to fit in a *bit* more Olympic stuff.

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by David (2)

ok, so wether you have all the freeview channels or just freeviewLite, it looks poor when compared with Freesat at the moment - this being the 24 extra BBC Olympic channels. Surely, if your really into this event satellite has to be the way to go, period.

I saw the service on Sky today (I assume the Freesat version is similar) and it is excellent. Makes the Freeview offering during the Olympics look pathetic. They don't have an events list on Freeview HD when choosing what to watch, and 302 (and BBC2 when that is showing coverage) don't even feature on the channel changer.

Lucky I'm not really that bothered about the Olympics.

On a wider note, if BBC can launch all those extra channels on satellite, why are we making do at all with *Pauper Vew*? Wont this just highlight how far behind freeview is?

O yes, not forgetting the res reduction on some freeview bbc channels right now, in order to fit in a *bit* more Olympic stuff.

What they should have done, was utilised the HD capacity as additional services rather than simulcast.

On Freeview we have the choice of a maximum of four(?) events, most of them simulcast in HD. What we could have is those four plus however many SD channels can fit in the space of 304 (five?), plus BBC HD showing a different event to any of the other channels. That's about ten streams, with two of them in HD. People without Freeview HD receivers or in the two pre-DSO regions would be stuck with four streams (BBC1, BBC3, 301 and 302), but that's what they are getting now anyway so I don't see it as a problem. HD viewers will get ~ten streams, there will just be one less HD stream, and BBC HD might not be carrying as major an event as it is currently.

Add the events grid thing and a much superior Olympics service would be present on Freeview.

They could even have closed BBC HD for the duration of the Olympics and used that capacity for another five SD streams. When the Olympics are over, they could then start up BBC2 HD.

It seems like having the Olympics in HD on Freeview is more important to them than carrying ~15 live streams. I kind of like that attitude, shame the commercial multiplex operators don't have the same.

[Caxton]

Originally Posted by David (2)

It maybe nothing to you but 55+ pounds pm is a large amount to some people. 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. Many dont have sky+ let alone multiroom. Our retired friend over the road cant even afford to use her central heating in winter.
For 55 pm i can drive my car for a month so theres no debate on the matter, we simply cant justify skys prices.

The cost for a couple to go to just two home Premiership Football matches a month providing just 3 hrs of entertainment, £55 spent on Sky looks very good value for money. Many spend over £55 a month on drink and/or cigarettes, it just depends where and how you want to spend your money.

[derk weasel]

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.

£26000 py the basic average???? i really dont know how u come to that conclusion.
you must be earning well over £10 an hour which most people could only dream of or you must be doing all the overtime under the sun.

[lstar337]

Originally Posted by Caxton

The cost for a couple to go to just two home Premiership Football matches a month providing just 3 hrs of entertainment, £55 spent on Sky looks very good value for money.

I hope you are not suggesting that watching a football match on Sky and watching it at a home stadium are comparable experiences?

Originally Posted by Caxton

Many spend over £55 a month on drink and/or cigarettes, it just depends where and how you want to spend your money.

In this case, a Sky subscription may be money better spent.

[derk weasel]

Originally Posted by Caxton

The cost for a couple to go to just two home Premiership Football matches a month providing just 3 hrs of entertainment, £55 spent on Sky looks very good value for money. Many spend over £55 a month on drink and/or cigarettes, it just depends where and how you want to spend your money.

not everyone is a fan of a premiership team. to be honest i prefer the championship over the premiership anyday.
sky and the excessive amount of money it has pumped into the premiership is im my opinion a major factor in making the prem the money mad league it is now. some will say that the money has made it successful but it was a strong league b4 all this sky money was pumped into it

[lstar337]

Originally Posted by derk weasel

£26000 py the basic average???? i really dont know how u come to that conclusion.
you must be earning well over £10 an hour which most people could only dream of or you must be doing all the overtime under the sun.

Depends where he is.

If he is in London, then he might be right. People in London seem to get paid more just because they have to pay to live in London.

Where I live (the south west), the average is more like £18,000.

[sparkplugs]

I forgot to add my opinion that even in Freeview "Lite" areas, I don't think that Freeview should be called "Pauper View".

[derk weasel]

Originally Posted by lstar337

Depends where he is.

If he is in London, then he might be right. People in London seem to get paid more just because they have to pay to live in London.

Where I live (the south west), the average is more like £18,000.

sounds about the same as here in the border of east mids n east anglia Istar

[sparkplugs]

I wonder if Freeview would still be in the eyes of the OP of the thread "Pauper View" if more HD channels were available?

[Charnham]

Originally Posted by sparkplugs

I wonder if Freeview would still be in the eyes of the OP of the thread "Pauper View" if more HD channels were available?

maybe not, becuase what you suggest would be a dramatic improvement for the platform.

Also the simple fact is that Freeview is too limited too support that, hence why its being called "Pauperview"

[sparkplugs]

Originally Posted by Charnham

maybe not, becuase what you suggest would be a dramatic improvement for the platform.

Also the simple fact is that Freeview is too limited too support that, hence why its being called "Pauperview"

I am asking if the OP would still refer to Freeview as "Pauper View" because it seems that no matter what good is brought to Freeview, somebody always has to be negative about Freeview and calling it silly names like "Pauper View"!