General : ITV threaten to blackout on Virgin

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

However, it doesn't have to be more expensive! Even with recent cuts, the BBC is very, very wasteful.

£12 a month to produce mostly original content, advert free plus all the extra service s the BBC provides is a steal.
Sky/VM charge 3 times plus that amount, for advert infested and imported crap. The little content they do produce is usually of inferior quality.
We need a state broadcaster, it's output is unique as its not influenced by profit/advertisers, it really would be a case of you'd miss it when its gone.

[gba93]

Originally Posted by Mr K

£12 a month to produce mostly original content, advert free plus all the extra service s the BBC provides is a steal.
Sky/VM charge 3 times plus that amount, for advert infested and imported crap. The little content they do produce is usually of inferior quality.
We need a state broadcaster, it's output is unique as its not influenced by profit/advertisers, it really would be a case of you'd miss it when its gone.

Well put Mr K

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by Mr K

£12 a month to produce mostly original content, advert free plus all the extra service s the BBC provides is a steal.
Sky/VM charge 3 times plus that amount, for advert infested and imported crap. The little content they do produce is usually of inferior quality.
We need a state broadcaster, it's output is unique as its not influenced by profit/advertisers, it really would be a case of you'd miss it when its gone.

Sky basic package which includes sports mix (more sport in a week than BBC show in a month) is £22 pm - when I went to school this was less than 2 times 12 not more than 3 times.

It may be a steal in your opinion, I think what people are saying is that they should be able to choose whether to pay or not as they have with sky or virgin.

Personally, I am unsure if I would or not, there are a few things I watch on BBC but would it justify £12pm - that is the question.

Anyway, getting back on topic is there a definitive answer to the ITV blackout on virgin?

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mr K

£12 a month to produce mostly original content, advert free plus all the extra service s the BBC provides is a steal.
Sky/VM charge 3 times plus that amount, for advert infested and imported crap. The little content they do produce is usually of inferior quality.
We need a state broadcaster, it's output is unique as its not influenced by profit/advertisers, it really would be a case of you'd miss it when its gone.

No I wouldn't. I don't use it now so won't miss it if it goes. If it is so superior to anything else as you are inferring then there is no reason it cannot stand on it's own and turn a profit.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

£12 a month to produce mostly original content, advert free plus all the extra service s the BBC provides is a steal.
Sky/VM charge 3 times plus that amount, for advert infested and imported crap. The little content they do produce is usually of inferior quality.
We need a state broadcaster, it's output is unique as its not influenced by profit/advertisers, it really would be a case of you'd miss it when its gone.

I agree that Sky does not represent good value for money but that is not a reason to rubbish the idea of a subscription to replace the licence fee. Netflix is a much better example, with a wealth of good viewing at your fingertips and a couple or so complete new original series coming out every week all year round. They don't have advertisements either.

I'm not quite sure why you are pointing out that we'd miss the BBC if it was gone. Nobody has suggested the Corporation should disappear and I am certainly not advocating that.

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Raider999

Sky basic package which includes sports mix (more sport in a week than BBC show in a month) is £22 pm - when I went to school this was less than 2 times 12 not more than 3 times.

It may be a steal in your opinion, I think what people are saying is that they should be able to choose whether to pay or not as they have with sky or virgin.

Personally, I am unsure if I would or not, there are a few things I watch on BBC but would it justify £12pm - that is the question.

Anyway, getting back on topic is there a definitive answer to the ITV blackout on virgin?

The definitive answer is for ITV to back down on their ridiculous demand for Virgin to stump up the money they seem to think they have a right to.

If ITV want to make more money from Virgin, maybe they should think more along the lines of what additional services they can offer. Their catch up offering is crap, for example. Why don't they think more along the lines of a bespoke Netflix type platform with 30 day catch up of all their scheduled offerings, plus whole series of ITV original dramas, shows and other material for which they have the rights, uncluttered by adverts. ITV must have a huge archive of programming that many people would appreciate having easy access to. With a bit of imagination, they should be able to come up with some ideas like this that Virgin would be prepared to pay them for as an additional service to VM customers.

[johnathome]

It was posted earlier in the thread before it exploded with talk of the BBC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...es-war-virgin/

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by johnathome

It was posted earlier in the thread before it exploded with talk of the BBC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...es-war-virgin/

Let's hope something good comes of this to the benefit of Virgin customers.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Wow! What an entrenched point of view you do have!

I think I’ll just let this rest here for its ironic value.

[Hom3r]

Please take away ITV then I won't have to sit in a room with people who love Dancing on ice.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Please take away ITV then I won't have to sit in a room with people who love Dancing on ice.

Surely, you don't have to have ITV removed to extricate your self from watching that rubbish.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think I’ll just let this rest here for its ironic value.

Comedy gold.

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think I’ll just let this rest here for its ironic value.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think I’ll just let this rest here for its ironic value.

I've noted a spelling mistake here, Chris. In your penultimate word, the 'r' should have been a 'c'.

[japitts]

Originally Posted by denphone

Personally we think the licence fee represents good value when you look at the scope of what the BBC actually does but alas quite a few others disagree and that is their prerogative.

Yep, agreed. I know that BBC bashing is quite fashionable these days, and there's a lot more competition - but take away everything they provide and I suspect a few people would be rather surprised.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by japitts

Yep, agreed. I know that BBC bashing is quite fashionable these days, and there's a lot more competition - but take away everything they provide and I suspect a few people would be rather surprised.

Not at all, if i don't use it how can i be surprised.

Anyway my point is i should have a choice and not be forced to pay because i own a TV. If i only watch SKY sports for instance and none of the BBC's products why should i have to pay a tax to the BBC when they had no input in the making of Sky's sports programs ???