Re: Opacity of the BBC

"Arfur Million" <arfur_million@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:34f41b40-8f69-444a-a43a-66453314b4c5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 12 June, 08:11, "Carl Waring" <em...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And I think your 8 hours a week is actually an average for
> the TV watching population

No. I said that the BBC is watch for an average of 8 hours a week. Not TV as
a whole.

Yes, yes, yes, but what I was complaining about was your formulation
"95% or thereabouts watching the BBC for an average of eight hours
week" which is highly ambiguous at best, misleading at worst.

Actually, you are right. I apologise. I'm getting my facts a little muddled.

The 95% refers to the

The
average amount of BBC watched by the TV viewing population may be 8
hours per week, but that is not the same as saying that 95% of people
watch the BBC for 8 hours or more. (Hypothetical example for sake of
argument: 50% of people watch the TV for 10 hours/week, 50% for 6
hours/week - only 50% of the population watch TV for more than 8
hours. With a typical real distribution, you can expect less than 50%
of the population to watch the average amount.)

> It may amaze you to know that different people have different tastes,
> and like different things.

Nope. Doesn't amaze me at all. More like common sense.

It is equally common sense to have a pricing structure that
accommodates those people who don't watch TV that much, rather than
the ridiculous licence fee.

The lobby against it and try and get it changed. Good luck with that though, as no major party will touch the idea with a barge-pole.

>> > These people are either not watching television,

>> If they are not watching TV, why do they have a TV Licence? If they >> don't
>> have a TV Licence then what's the problem?

> Why should they fund the BBC if they find the BBC bad value for money?

Well, they're really buying a TV Licence to legally watch live broadcast TV
programmes from /any/ provider.

The money just happens to go to the national PSB provider rather than, say,
the Govt.

So they are funding the BBC, like I said.

Well, I suppose so. In a round-about way; if you want to phrase it like that in your anti-BBC slant ;-)

> Perhaps they think it is worth paying the £142.50 per annum to watch
> the other channels, or all channels in total - but they would not
> subscribe to the BBC if they had a *free* choice. That's the problem.

They can not watch any BBC if they so decide. Doesn't mean they can not pay
for their TVL.

That is not a free choice.

It's as free as any other choice. Can you subsribe to Sky Sports or Movies without paying £17 for a standard "pack" first with Sky?

Yes, I know "you're not forced to subscribe to Sky". That wasn't the point.

You don't *have* to use the Motorways if you don't want to, but you still
need to buy a Driving Licence.

Not if you drive on private land you don't.

Yes. And if you own a TV but don't use it for watching live broadcast TV then you don't need a licence.

Even if you don't drive,
you benefit from the free (freer, anyway) movement of goods that
motorways provide.

Yes and you can freely listen to BBC Radio and use the iPlayer on the internet without a licence.



> In any case, someone who has paid the licence
> so that they can watch the footy or film channels on Sky obviously
> isn't going to not watch the few programmes on the BBC that they like
> - but that is a far cry from saying that they would pay the £142.50
> per annum to watch the BBC.

If they watch one programme a day, I'd say that was their 37-9p well spent.
If they watch more than one, or listen to some radio as well, then that's
even better value.

But would they be willing to pay that, if they had a free choice, or
would they choose to do without? I think we both know that different
people would come to different conclusions on that.

Wow! "Give the choice, people would rather not pay for something they currently have to."

I call that a no-brainer. I'm sure you'd rather not pay Income Tax, wouldn't you? But you still have no.

I haven't used the NHS in years yet, if I were working, I'd still be funding it.

(And no, I am NOT equating the NHS with the BBC. It's called an anlogy.)


--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide - The Worlds Best TV Guide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Spooks Code9 - how many viewers will it lose?
    ... Don't watch it, don't need a licence. ... That's *any* UK TV, by the way, not just the BBC. ... It is not canonical with human rights law, the English Law of Tort, ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: BBC seeks increase to licence fee
    ... I have never said that the BBC ... licence fee in their unfairness and enforcement policy. ... >>> watch BBC or they think it's all crap, but scratch the surface and it ... > at something between 1 and 1.5 million households with at least one ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Some dodgey bugges in Cheshire
    ... as long as it's a recording. ... BTW this info came from a BBC ... Although the BBC get paid from the licence fees, ... licence even if you only watch on a monochrome TV. ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)
  • Re: BBC seeks increase to licence fee
    ... I have never said that the BBC ... licence is the only thing wrong in society. ... > watch BBC or they think it's all crap, but scratch the surface and it ... individually the politics of all the papers is known. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Latest on CB licenses?
    ... You do not need a licence to buy, own, possess or even switch on a ... TV. Watching any pre-recorded material and playing games on a TV ... A friend of mine claimed he avoided paying a license by only ever ... Yes I know the license only funds the BBC ones but freeview ...
    (uk.rec.radio.cb)