TV repeats

oldagetraveller1

"I wonder how many who refuse to pay it enjoy listening to any of the BBC programs on radio, or turn to the BBC website for news and weather?"

Me for one. Not listened to their garbage radio output for a long time. e.g. Radio 2 has become Radio 1 Mk. 2. If I did listen, it most certainly wouldn't be enjoyed.

Nor do I access their website for the biased propaganda they churn out. Weather, Met Office app. suits me fine.

As you may gather, I'm not a fan! B)Also £160/annum better off.

 

Ath_Wat

oldagetraveller1 said:

"I wonder how many who refuse to pay it enjoy listening to any of the BBC programs on radio, or turn to the BBC website for news and weather?"

Me for one. Not listened to their garbage radio output for a long time. e.g. Radio 2 has become Radio 1 Mk. 2. If I did listen, it most certainly wouldn't be enjoyed.

Nor do I access their website for the biased propaganda they churn out. Weather, Met Office app. suits me fine.

As you may gather, I'm not a fan! B)Also £160/annum better off.

 

Which way do you think it is biased?

Ebe_Scrooge

powerful_Rogue said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

p00hsticks said:

If the BBC (for example) had to provide all new content for the same budget and the same amount of hours then the quality would fall even further than it already is - we'd end up with even more cheap low-budget spun out quiz and reality shows.

I have to agree with this.  Why is it that you never get the David Attenborough nature documentaries on ITV?  Because they cost a huge amount to make, whereas a cheesy game-show is cheap as chips.  I've always thought the BBC does make much higher-quality programs.

As for the licence fee - I wonder how many who refuse to pay it enjoy listening to any of the BBC programs on radio, or turn to the BBC website for news and weather?

No, I don't work for the BBC, and I'm not defending them as such - just putting an alternative point of view out there :-) 

I do listen to Radio 2, however that doesn't require a TV licence so not sure what your point is. If that was the case, I would find a new station to listen to.

Although you don't actually need a licence any more for the radio, I was just making the point that it's still paid for out of the licence fee.

p00hsticks

Torry_Quine said:

I always find something to watch, often more than one thing. I record and use catch up services. There's not enough time to watch every programme I would enjoy. Can never understand people who complain there is nothing worth watching. 

Just out of interest, @Torry_Quine , what sort of programs do you like, what TV services do you have and how many hours a day do you watch TV ?

Mnoee

Ebe_Scrooge said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

p00hsticks said:

If the BBC (for example) had to provide all new content for the same budget and the same amount of hours then the quality would fall even further than it already is - we'd end up with even more cheap low-budget spun out quiz and reality shows.

I have to agree with this.  Why is it that you never get the David Attenborough nature documentaries on ITV?  Because they cost a huge amount to make, whereas a cheesy game-show is cheap as chips.  I've always thought the BBC does make much higher-quality programs.

As for the licence fee - I wonder how many who refuse to pay it enjoy listening to any of the BBC programs on radio, or turn to the BBC website for news and weather?

No, I don't work for the BBC, and I'm not defending them as such - just putting an alternative point of view out there :-) 

I do listen to Radio 2, however that doesn't require a TV licence so not sure what your point is. If that was the case, I would find a new station to listen to.

Although you don't actually need a licence any more for the radio, I was just making the point that it's still paid for out of the licence fee.

Is it, though? About a quarter of the BBCs income is from commercial ventures, not the TV licence. They spend about 27% of their budget on radio and 'online' which would include both the news and everything else. 

They also spend 5% of the license fee on 'TV licence collection' - including the lovely threatening letters they send out to people like me. I can and have told them I don't need a licence, but every year or so they like to double check. How do you feel paying £8.64 a year for that?

(source for those numbers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51376255) 

Torry_Quine

p00hsticks said:

Torry_Quine said:

I always find something to watch, often more than one thing. I record and use catch up services. There's not enough time to watch every programme I would enjoy. Can never understand people who complain there is nothing worth watching. 

Just out of interest, @Torry_Quine , what sort of programs do you like, what TV services do you have and how many hours a day do you watch TV ?

@ p00sticks I have Freeview only and that's more than satisfactory.
A few things I like eg Casualty, MasterChef, Shetland and Repair Shop. Also like BBC 4 on Saturday nights foreign dramas. My evening starts with Ch 4 news and I watch TV all evening. 

elsien

Ath_Wat said:

elsien said:

Ath_Wat said:

elsien said:

I still mainly watch live TV with a bit of catch up on the free steaming services. 

I record the ITV ones so I can fast forwards through the adverts. I don’t want or need to pay to watch Netflix and the like. Tried a free prime trial, can happily live without it. I can afford £70 a year or whatever it is but it’s money I’d far rather spend elsewhere. 

My internet isn’t great and buffers at times.
If there’s not a lot on and no catch up that I fancy seeing, I’d rather pick up a book than faff around all the dross elsewhere trying to find something decent.

Not a pensioner. Happy with live TV and a bit of catch up And do feel I get my money’s worth from the beeb because listen to the radio more often than not. 

Just to put the other side. 

If you record ITV, you are not watching live TV.  "Live TV" doesn't mean the broadcast channels, it means watching it at the moment they show it.

Perfectly well aware of what live TV is, thank you.  And most  of what I watch is live TV so my comment still stands.

Then, why?  When you have the means to watch whatever programme you want whenever you want to watch it, why do you confine yourself to whatever happens to be on the schedule?  And don't say "I'd rather pick up a book", I am talking about the times when you are watching something.  When you decide to watch television why not watch something that started 17 minutes ago from the start, rather than watch it from halfway through or watch something else that just happens to start at the time you turn it on?

There is simply no good reason to watch scheduled broadcasting any more and it won't be long before it is confined to live coverage of currently happening events.

Because it works for me and I’m quite happy doing it that way? 

I don’t particularly care whether anyone else thinks there’s a good reason or not. 

The_Unready

Ath_Wat said:

There is simply no good reason to watch scheduled broadcasting any more and it won't be long before it is confined to live coverage of currently happening events.

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that what works for you also works for the other 60 million or so occupants of the UK!

Sicard

Just went to watch channel 5's Bargain Loving Brits in the Sun (please don't judge) and the episodes were repeated 2 weeks ago and this is a repeat from those.

Andy_L

How does that %age compare to ITV etc

Does it include BBC4, which is almost totally BBC archive programs? I'd suggest there's a difference between, eg, a repeat The Old Grey Whistle Test from 1978 and a repeat of something 1st shown last week