Does more choice equal less quality TV channels?

in Phones & TV
21 replies 688 views
I remember when I was a child television seemed to cram so much variety and quality programmes on just 3 channels, now we have all this choice via hundreds of channels it feels like we actually have a lot less quality. Hence the saying quantity verses quality.

I was just 13 when Channel 4 was first broadcast in 1982, but even at 13 I remember thinking how the hell am I going to find time to watch another channel when all the things I like watching we're on the other three channels , BBC 1, BBC 2, and ITV.

But now I seem to spend most of the day or evening depending on what shift I am flicking through the vast array of channels trying to find something worth watching. We didnt have this problem with just 3 channels.

Who agrees they would rather just have 3 decent channels, and a better way of charging for them? The TV licence is out dated. Like a pay per view depending on what channel your watching. Because at the moment if you got Sky aswell we are paying way too much as you can only watch one thing at a time.
«13

Replies

  • Neil_JonesNeil_Jones Forumite
    7.3K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Forumite
    renegadefm wrote: »
    I remember when I was a child television seemed to cram so much variety and quality programmes on just 3 channels, now we have all this choice via hundreds of channels it feels like we actually have a lot less quality. Hence the saying quantity verses quality.

    I was just 13 when Channel 4 was first broadcast in 1982, but even at 13 I remember thinking how the hell am I going to find time to watch another channel when all the things I like watching we're on the other three channels , BBC 1, BBC 2, and ITV.

    But now I seem to spend most of the day or evening depending on what shift I am flicking through the vast array of channels trying to find something worth watching. We didnt have this problem with just 3 channels.

    Who agrees they would rather just have 3 decent channels, and a better way of charging for them? The TV licence is out dated. Like a pay per view depending on what channel your watching. Because at the moment if you got Sky aswell we are paying way too much as you can only watch one thing at a time.

    So get a better Sky deal then if you're paying too much.

    Nobody can watch the vast range of TV options we have today, with 437 channels or whatever it is, Netflix, Amazon, Disney to follow and no doubt others, its all about choice. Far more choice and the rise of on-demand.

    We're not going back to 1982 with four channels because the whole point of going digital was that we would get more channels and as things turns out technology advanced to such a point where we can get 437 and a whole heap of on demand material as well.

    If you struggle to find something to watch on the TV, there's this thing called a Power button, and other technologies exist that provide entertainment value and cost either nothing or peanuts. Like the radio. Or these strange rectangular things full of paper called books which you can borrow for free from your local library. ;)
  • JJ_EganJJ_Egan Forumite
    20.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    (Who agrees they would rather just have 3 decent channels,0


    100% NO
    If you want three then start at the top of your EPG and don't look at any channels after 3 .
  • giraffe69giraffe69 Forumite
    3.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Forumite
    People are known to use the phrase "500 channels and nothing worth watching" but I, for one, would not wish to go back to the days of 4 channels. I now have a choicer of many, plenty of stuff to watch, recording it to avoid adverts, being able to watch or download and watch on train and air plane journeys. Its much more flexible, it doesn't much matter if you miss something as there is catch up.
    The whole package is infinitely superior to what it was in 1982.
  • My point was less seemed more. For example more variety was crammed into just 3 channels before 1982. And we didnt waste half the evening flicking channels or browsing mile long planners.

    I didnt expect everyone to see my point or even agree with it but personally I'd happily go back to 3 channels if it meant the quality on those channels went back to being great again.

    I look at BBC1, BBC2, ITV, these days and they are a pale reflection of yesteryear. Its as if they have become watered down, since all this choice.
  • I'd like a situation I guess where we actually got back to watching TV than wasting hours browsing planners, recording, catch up tv, flicking through hundreds of channels filled with rubbish and repeats. Its become overwhelming and costing us a fortune for the privilege.
  • With all the major channels' programmes available on-demand, PVRs and YouTube you can create a 'channel' of your own with all your favourites on at times to suit you. Think of the broadcast channels as suggested playlists.
  • Neil_JonesNeil_Jones Forumite
    7.3K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Forumite
    renegadefm wrote: »
    My point was less seemed more. For example more variety was crammed into just 3 channels before 1982. And we didnt waste half the evening flicking channels or browsing mile long planners.

    So plan your viewing in advance. Set up the reminders, use the search, go ahead in time and plan what you want to watch. The EPG works a lot better if you use it properly.
    I didnt expect everyone to see my point or even agree with it but personally I'd happily go back to 3 channels if it meant the quality on those channels went back to being great again.

    I look at BBC1, BBC2, ITV, these days and they are a pale reflection of yesteryear. Its as if they have become watered down, since all this choice.

    This is nothing but your wearing rose-tinted glasses. Anyway if such a reduction to three channels did happen (and it won't), it doesn't automatically mean the channels you mention will increase in quality. If you're paying full price for Sky, then stop moaning and get a better deal.
    renegadefm wrote: »
    I'd like a situation I guess where we actually got back to watching TV than wasting hours browsing planners, recording, catch up tv, flicking through hundreds of channels filled with rubbish and repeats. Its become overwhelming and costing us a fortune for the privilege.

    It is not "costing us a fortune" because you don't have to pay for it. Freeview is the exact same EPG style guide, and Freeview is free. And Sky is always an optional extra, not an obligation.

    Like I've just said, if you use your EPG and planner properly, you wouldn't be wasting time.

    If you want to go back to a time of three channels and sod all choice, go and buy a flux capacitor and bolt it to a Delorean.
  • I was being kinda hypothetical, I know we're never going to revert back the 3 channels.

    I'm merely pointing out how good those channels managed to sustain a high quality package of programmes everyday. Now everything is watered down. Only a few million at best watch each channel I suspect now, compared to 18 million would watch Top of the pops at its peak.
  • renegadefm wrote: »
    I was being kinda hypothetical, I know we're never going to revert back the 3 channels.

    I'm merely pointing out how good those channels managed to sustain a high quality package of programmes everyday. Now everything is watered down. Only a few million at best watch each channel I suspect now, compared to 18 million would watch Top of the pops at its peak.


    I think your viewing the past through rose tinted spectacles.

    Oh and 18 million watched Top of the pops because there was now't else to do.
  • No but I remember going to school and everyone talking about things like TOTP, just about everything we watched the night before. That eliment is gone now. Television was special in those days.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest News and Guides