Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> At least here in the US, the programmes are secondary - the whole 
>> point of commercial television is the commercials - that's where the 
>> broadcasters make their money.
>>
>> The shows are what draws people to watch.
>>
>> But of course with things like the "magic skippy button" (ie, DVR and 
>> the ability to skip commercials), broadcasters are having problems 
>> justifying the cost of ad slots since the number of views is lower 
>> because technology allows people to skip commercials.
> 
> In the UK, everybody who owns a TV has to pay money to the BBC. The BBC 
> therefore has no incentive at all to ever show anything. 

You could try reading the BBC's Royal Charter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf

> (Well, except I 
> suppose that if they stopped broadcasting, the government wouldn't be 
> too amused about it...) In general, the BBC used to produce some pretty 
> high-quality stuff. (They also have fewER adverts.) Today, even the BBC 
> is being diluted across too many channels.
> 
> I just don't watch TV any more. :-P
> 
> Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.
> 

And what would you know about an acid trip, good or bad?

> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV 
> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay. If you so much as own a 
> toaster which contains a CPU with is hypothetically powerful enough to 
> run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that you could mod your toaster to 
> watch TV, so you need a TV license.
> 

You do your credibility no good with statements like that.
You only pay the licence fee if you have a receiver that can receive UK 
TV broadcasts.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message