Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2011) Vol. III.

[clinteastman]

Seeing as a lot of the pressure the BBC was coming under we being spued by James Murdock I think the heat is off them a bit going forward what with it coming to light that James Murdock is a ******* and all.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by clinteastman

Seeing as a lot of the pressure the BBC was coming under we being spued by James Murdock I think the heat is off them a bit going forward what with it coming to light that James Murdock is a ******* and all.

The Independent give him a slating also
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...d-6259953.html

Curtains for him at BSKYB in my opinion.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

or pay the BBC via Virgin Media £12.99 per month to watch all the BBC Channels (My phone says we pay the BBC £12.12.5 per month right now).

Or I love to see the BBC having an night on BBC One every year called ''BBC in Need''.

That's actually quite a good idea. It might allow the BBC to save on some administrative costs (pay TV operators will need subscriber management services anyway), help some customers to budget and stop some TV license fee evasion (especially since the decision to scrap the requirement of TV retailers to inform TVL whenever a TV is purchased.)

This could be applied to all pay TV operators. Incidentally, VM have the power to disconnect TV customers who are found not to be in possession of a valid TVL. Ironically, VM are not allowed to encrypt the BBC channels, so they would have to ensure that the box was physically removed!

Originally Posted by Jameseh

Because Channel 4 and ITV can afford to run more HD channels because they're behind a paywall, BBC must make them available to every platform for free and pay for them to broadcast there.

Sky own the satellite and have more money than jesus so they're not particularly comparable.

I thought that Channel 4 HD was now available FTA

Sky don't own the satellites that they use, they are actually owned by SES who lease transponders to, amongst other people, Sky. http://www.ses.com/4232583/en

[Media Boy UK]

Channel 4 to give More4 an new look in January 2012.

More 4, Channel 4's successful digital channel is evolving. From January 2012 a channel re-brand will mark the introduction of an even clearer programming proposition with the schedule focusing more fully on popular factual and features - life enhancing content, helping viewers to get the most out of their everyday lives.

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/n...e4-is-evolving

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I thought that Channel 4 HD was now available FTA

I meant ITV2, ITV3, E4, etc.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Sky don't own the satellites that they use, they are actually owned by SES who lease transponders to, amongst other people, Sky.

And I never knew that so I've learnt something today.

[Kingofthedead4]

I think we are forgetting that the licence money also goes toward they BBC's radio service which is excellent. Especially radio 5 for the sport which is offers a nice alternative to listen to some sport which we don't have to pay for.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Kingofthedead4

I think we are forgetting that the licence money also goes toward they BBC's radio service which is excellent. Especially radio 5 for the sport which is offers a nice alternative to listen to some sport which we don't have to pay for.

Well said

[muppetman11]

To be honest I don't listen to BBC radio nor do I watch BBC1 or BBC2 so I would love to see the fee scrapped , however I respect other peoples differing views.

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

To be honest I don't listen to BBC radio nor do I watch BBC1 or BBC2 so I would love to see the fee scrapped , however I respect other peoples differing views.

I would have to agree with you, for the same reasons.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I think the BBC should advertise as they advertise there own shows, so why not advertise companies, I think it is totally unfair when they give out so many repeats and crap shows, they charge us the earth in Licence fee's to pay over rated stars lots of money.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think the BBC should advertise as they advertise there own shows, so why not advertise companies, I think it is totally unfair when they give out so many repeats and crap shows, they charge us the earth in Licence fee's to pay over rated stars lots of money.

You pay a license fee to legally watch broadcast TV in the UK, the proceeds just happen to go to the BBC.

[toady]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think the BBC should advertise as they advertise there own shows, so why not advertise companies,

We love watching the BBC channels because there are no ads trying to sell you stuff you don't need

Also the BBC produces all those niche programmes that wouldn't get made on commercial channels

The license fee is worth every penny

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by toady

We love watching the BBC channels because there are no ads trying to sell you stuff you don't need

Also the BBC produces all those niche programmes that wouldn't get made on commercial channels

The license fee is worth every penny

In your eyes it is not mine , the licence fee will always be a contentious subject. The deciding factor will always be how much you use the BBC services. I'm not saying im right and your wrong its personal preference.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

Because Channel 4 and ITV can afford to run more HD channels because they're behind a paywall, BBC must make them available to every platform for free and pay for them to broadcast there.

Sky own the satellite and have more money than jesus so they're not particularly comparable.

so why can't the bbc have more money that jesus by controlling the lisence fee

---------- Post added at 11:14 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

The Independent give him a slating also
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...d-6259953.html

Curtains for him at BSKYB in my opinion.

unlikely, as long as news corp owns 40% of the company

---------- Post added at 11:15 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think the BBC should advertise as they advertise there own shows, so why not advertise companies, I think it is totally unfair when they give out so many repeats and crap shows, they charge us the earth in Licence fee's to pay over rated stars lots of money.

so you want the x factor and more of the many crap itv shows on bbc then?

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

In your eyes it is not mine , the licence fee will always be a contentious subject. The deciding factor will always be how much you use the BBC services. I'm not saying im right and your wrong its personal preference.

Actually, a small proportion of my watching is BBC, but I still think it should be well funded as a Public service broadcaster making quality programmes covering all tastes. In fact, it annoys me when they forget the PSB bit, and pitch prime time shows against ITV to try to win a ratings war.