Re: Why the BBC is rubbish


"Scott" <spiced.porkandham@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kc9233p3cggf4rqfveuvaviqd1f7faop0f@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:06:58 +0100, spam@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:46:31 GMT, Scott <spiced.porkandham@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:08:32 GMT, "Rayzor" <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Ken" <_ken_3_@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:p31133h23c67ssitg4do8avcb602ammold@xxxxxxxxxx

The Inquirer
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39193

In technical terms, the BBC used to be a world leader, but even that's
gone down the toilet. The BBC's attitude to digital audio broadcasting
is laughable - the DAB transmission of the high quality Radio 3
is broadcast at a lower resolution than the same channel on digital
terrestrial TV. In most places in the UK, people will get better sound
quality from the ancient FM network than DAB. Progress, eh?
By Andrew Thomas: 26 april 2007, 10:31


Simple salution to you wingers
dont ficking listen to it and it wont hurt you so much
*** heads

Those of us who pay our licence expect a good quality product in
return.

You don't pay a licence fee for radio.

MK

Yes and no. Although there is no radio licence, BBC radio is funded
from the TV licence revenues (except World Service). What I said was
that I pay a licence fee (which I do) and I therefore expect high
quality product for ALL the services that are funded by that payment.

Scott
So sell your tv hence you wont need a licence then you have no complaints
when listning to the radio
moaner you prob aint got tv licence


.

Quantcast