General : Underhand devious Sky

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Chad

If Scotland votes for independence it has already been suggested that the BBC might not have a future in Scotland.

Whilst I'm not a big fan of paying a TV license the thought of losing BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News, BBC HD all BBC Radio and BBC iPlayer doesn't sit well with me at all.

For me personally about 40% of all programmes I digest on TV, radio, online and via catch up are from the BBC. I also visit the BBC news website more times than any other site on the net each day. Call me old fashioned but I enjoy TV and radio more when it's commercial free.

That isn't true. What would happen is that a proportion of revenue would come to Scotland..or an arrangment for Scottish shows...or indeed, if full independence, it might involve revenue from Scottish citizens going to BBC Scotland..including infrastructure up here.

My own opinion..I watch very little BBC etc...and if Scotland went alone..all they would give us is Fran and anna..and salmond tv..scary thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agCp3YtUXAU
And I apologise for sharing the fran and anna link

Originally Posted by Chad

If Scotland votes for independence it has already been suggested that the BBC might not have a future in Scotland.

Whilst I'm not a big fan of paying a TV license the thought of losing BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News, BBC HD all BBC Radio and BBC iPlayer doesn't sit well with me at all.

For me personally about 40% of all programmes I digest on TV, radio, online and via catch up are from the BBC. I also visit the BBC news website more times than any other site on the net each day. Call me old fashioned but I enjoy TV and radio more when it's commercial free.

---------- Post added at 10:28 ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 ----------

Less of the personal attacks on fellow members please.

If the ignore function is less than satisfactory then leave the thread or do as I have to and exercise some self control..

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

I knew someone would mention this. However, when you add in everything extra that they have now been given to do with the same money (like funding the World Service) then it does amount to a real-world cut of something like 16-20%


No they did not You shouldn't believe everything you read in certain newspapers with proven anti-BBC agendas (which then gets repeated as fact in other papers.)

IIRC (and it was some years ago now ) that £18m was, in fact, the amount paid to his production company over three (or so) years for everything they produced for the BBC; which was more than just the one BBC1 chat show.

I don't agree with the principle of the idea (ie the BBC making smarter, better use of the money it gets) but the situation is not helped when completely incorrect information, such as the above, is quoted as truth.

The point about Jonathon Ross is that the BBC have been wasting our money for years and it is only right that when everyone else is feeling the pinch that they also cut their cloth. You've also chosen to selectively quote from my post and as a result somewhat destroyed it's meaning-I know that the freeze is a cut in real terms but the point is that despite that they will still be able to broadcast 8 digital channels, many more radio stations and be at the front of connected TV in the UK. If they're able to do that on what you say is a 20% smaller budget then frankly that just means they've been overcharging by 20%. I'm all for the BBC, I accept the licence fee as a means of paying for it. I expect value as well as quality.

[DaMac]

Havn't read all this post but as to the idea of BBC scotland contributing shows as part of any arangement to cover revenue going in or coming out isnt going to work, look whats happened with ITV and STV.. Taggart doesn't really contribute enough to the network when you have Talent, X Factor, Corrie, Emmerdale I'm a celeb all costing big bucks to produce. Scotttish people would just have to have access to these channels blocked, and if they wanted them Sky or whoever would have to offer .them as BBC add on pack, a lot like asian people can get the asian channels as extras

[colin25]

Originally Posted by DaMac

Havn't read all this post but as to the idea of BBC scotland contributing shows as part of any arangement to cover revenue going in or coming out isnt going to work, look whats happened with ITV and STV.. Taggart doesn't really contribute enough to the network when you have Talent, X Factor, Corrie, Emmerdale I'm a celeb all costing big bucks to produce. Scotttish people would just have to have access to these channels blocked, and if they wanted them Sky or whoever would have to offer .them as BBC add on pack, a lot like asian people can get the asian channels as extras

You forget..BBC doesn't stand for English braodcasting Corporation..even if it acts like that at times.

So blocking isn't an option..unless it is devolved

Your comparison to asian channel is amusing though

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by andy_m

The point about Jonathon Ross is that the BBC have been wasting our money for years ....

And I'm sure that those people who watched and enjoyed everything that JR did on the BBC (his talk show, the "Film..." series and whatever else he did, will think it was money well spent.

I don't watch Eastenders but I don't think they should stop making it just because I don't watch it.

You've also chosen to selectively quote from my post and as a result somewhat destroyed it's meaning..

I have quoted the bits that were relevant to my responses.

[QUOTE]I know that the freeze is a cut in real terms but the point is that despite that they will still be able to broadcast 8 digital channels, many more radio stations and be at the front of connected TV in the UK.

And, if everything was remaining the same, you might have a point. But it isn't so you don't. Read more about the changes brought on by these "cuts" here.

I'm all for the BBC, I accept the licence fee as a means of paying for it. I expect value as well as quality.

Absolutely.

[boragthung]

Can't believe how big this thread's got! It's sort of evolved from my original moan though.

My opinion on licence fees and subscriptions - I have no problem with paying so I can have advert free quality (well some of it) telly. The licence fee provides a large number of services compared to what is provided by the likes of $ky at a more substantial cost.

Seeing as how the likes of $ky must make a fortune from advertising why should they be allowed to charge a subscription on top of that? This is the reason they have so much money to outbid and control content. Now I know the answer to that would be providing boxes and cards and encryption just like cable. Personally I think there should be no subs for anything if they raise income from adverts (else with subs - no adverts).

I think all media output should just be put out there FTA - if you want it buy the hardware you want. As it is everything is 'closed shop' with allowing only provided hardware and having viewing cards, subscriptions, etc. But my personal revolutionary new world is never going to happen.

The likes of ITV rely purely on income from adverts and although they have considered (or are considering) it, do not gain subscription income on top of that. Not that I watch much of ITV anyway as I think it is full of brainless tat in the main, with only the odd quality programme (Like Scott and Bailey). No subs to watch Ch4 or 5 either although I think these do get a small cut of licence fee to provide public services (and maybe ITV or rather ITN do as well?).

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by boragthung

Seeing as how the likes of $ky must make a fortune from advertising why should they be allowed to charge a subscription on top of that?

Because they can. I believe that Sky could drop all advertising and still make a load of money from Subs. In fact, they'd probably get a lot more subscribers if they did

[Superblade7]

I just thought I would add my points to this pretty interesting thread:

Sky have dominance because they took a big risk in the early days and bought the rights to the Premier League and first run movies on tv. This has paid off over the years as the popularity of having the choice to watch these on tv has grown and grown.

At the same time the cable industry was split into different companies all doing their own thing. If VM had been around in the late 80's / early 90's as the company they are today then things may have been different as they may have gone head to head for certain content. Unfortunately they weren't and that is where we are today.

The other advantage Sky have is it's availability as it is available in many more homes than cable and is therefore always going to pull a larger market share and in turn far greater revenue. They then use this revenue to invest in their programming, content and ever improving products and services.

The Sky quality also shows through, for example, the Champions League final last night, I chose to watch it on Sky Sports rather than ITV as I personally believe Sky present their football content far superior to any other channel.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Sky Atlantic, ITV2/3/4 HD, etc on VM but at the end of the day, it's a business and it has to have a USP to make people choose Sky over it's rivals.

VM currently have superfast broadband and all their advertising is focused on that as that's VM's USP.

I am very happy with my VM services and whilst I would love some extra TV content, to me Sky Atlantic only has had one or two shows that would have been interested in so wouldn't make me switch unless I got a far greater deal which would save me money for similar services.

On the point of the licence fee, I believe the BBC produce some great content, have great services and therefore provide a top class service considering.

My final point to end my post would be that whatever you believe, healthy competition is good for us, the consumer. It is great to have choice, whether you are happy with the FTA range available on Freeview / Freesat or if you want the pay TV content on Sky / VM / BT. It also keeps the prices reasonable as it it were only one big pay TV company, they would probably hike their prices up and you would have to like it or lump it.

Whatever your views, each individual has the right to choose what services are right for them both in terms of what they can afford and what they wish to watch.

Also, wouldnt it be boring if they were exactly the same as forums like this wouldn't be littered with all these interesting posts about pro's and con's and showing that everyone has their own views and where people have problems, others are always willing to help.

Great topic borag!

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Superblade7

I just thought I would add my points to this pretty interesting post:

Sky have dominance because they took a big risk in the early days and bought the rights to the Premier League and first run movies on tv. This has paid off over the years as the popularity of having the choice to watch these on tv has grown and grown.

First off brilliant post very balanced in my opinion and I agree with the point your making re Risk taking.

Originally Posted by Superblade7

At the same time the cable industry was split into different companies all doing their own thing. If VM had been around in the late 80's / early 90's as the company they are today then things may have been different as they may have gone head to head for certain content. Unfortunately they weren't and that is where we are today.

Yes in the days of NTL , Telewest they were terribly run , thankfully VM have turned it around.

Originally Posted by Superblade7

The other advantage Sky have is it's availability as it is available in many more homes than cable and is therefore always going to pull a larger market share and in turn far greater revenue. They then use this revenue to invest in their programming, content and ever improving products and services.

Fair point , I'd like to see VM grow their network footprint even further.

Originally Posted by Superblade7

The Sky quality also shows through, for example, the Champions League final last night, I chose to watch it on Sky Sports rather than ITV as I personally believe Sky present their football content far superior to any other channel.

I watched part of the game on Sky Sports HD and part on Sky 3D and both productions were excellent , Sky Sports presentation is vastly superior to ITV in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Superblade7

VM currently have superfast broadband and all their advertising is focused on that as that's VM's USP.

Yes VM's main product has always been fast BB.

Originally Posted by Superblade7

Also, wouldnt it be boring if they were exactly the same as forums like this wouldn't be littered with all these interesting posts about pro's and con's and showing that everyone has their own views and where people have problems, others are always willing to help.

Yes it would , it's nice to have companies with different offerings it gives the customer real choice.

[hdtvfan]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Yes in the days of NTL , Telewest they were terribly run , thankfully VM have turned it around.

lol, Virgin is all the worst parts of NTL and Telewest all rolled into one.

Before Virgin the Telewest network had no STM, they didn't throttle services, we didn't have Indian call centres and it now takes longer to get an engineer out (Gone are the days of getting lucky and having an engineer turn up the same day). I am not sure about NTL as I never used that service, but my experience in an ex Telewest area is that things have gone downhill since Virgin took over.

BTW I have been a cable user since the days of analogue and Cableinet

[denphone]

Originally Posted by hdtvfan

lol, Virgin is all the worst parts of NTL and Telewest all rolled into one.

but my experience in an ex Telewest area is that things have gone downhill since Virgin took over.

Not sure how many share your experiences of Virgin to be perfectly honest as the vast majority l know are very happy with their services and experience's with Virgin and if you are so unhappy with them then why are you still with them.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Yes in the days of NTL , Telewest they were terribly run , thankfully VM have turned it around.

Originally Posted by hdtvfan

lol, Virgin is all the worst parts of NTL and Telewest all rolled into one.

Interesting.

Before Virgin the Telewest network had no STM, they didn't throttle services..

Because it wasn't all one big network back there, so there was no need.

BTW I have been a cable user since the days of analogue and Cableinet

As have I; though I'm in an ex-NTL area now.

[DaMac]

Originally Posted by colin25

You forget..BBC doesn't stand for English braodcasting Corporation..even if it acts like that at times.

So blocking isn't an option..unless it is devolved

Your comparison to asian channel is amusing though

Don't mean to offend, my Father and all his family are from Scotland, but if Scotland goes it alone then it is effectivly resigning from Great Britain... British being the first word of BBC. Yes you could say that Scotland is in the British Isles, but then so is Ireland but i don't think any one pushes that point to far

[colin25]

Originally Posted by DaMac

Don't mean to offend, my Father and all his family are from Scotland, but if Scotland goes it alone then it is effectivly resigning from Great Britain... British being the first word of BBC. Yes you could say that Scotland is in the British Isles, but then so is Ireland but i don't think any one pushes that point to far

Not offended

i mean that BBC is funded from all license fees...so you couldn't just presume BBC would stay in England..Scotland needs to get its due share

How they would do that..would be tricky

But it is all tied into what way a split goes..if it is full devolution...then talks about how Scotland would get its share would ensue