The Government Has It In For the BBC

[Perry Vale]

People have in their homes the means to watch what they want when they want it, but still expect the service providers to do the work for them instead.

And it's often said that "the customer is always right".

Their competitors are not getting government funding, nor being paid for by the viewers with their licence fee.

Well, their competitors are being paid for by the viewers, just in a different way, in their weekly shop.

I'm not sure why, when their new output can still pull in figures of 7-10 million.

Sorry, I've missed your point here, I can't think of any digital channel or programme that pulls in anywhere near that figure. Last week's top rated digital programme was 'The Inbetweeners' on E4 with 3.72 million (well ahead of 2nd place 'An Idiot Abroad' on Sky with 1.65m). Are you just talking specifically about the BBC1 & 2?

Because most newspapers carry the same info for less money?

That would be funny, if it was actually true. But the last time I looked at a newspaper's tv guide, it had only a handful of the channels that you can watch on Sky, and contained very scant information, if any at all. Most digital channels are relegated to tiny columns at the page side, or quite often all bunched up on a following page.

If you're browsing with a Sky (or other) remote, you can press that little 'information' button which more often than not these days has a brief programme/episode synopsis. You don't get that in a newspaper tv guide.

[Jason Thompson]

And it's often said that "the customer is always right".

A lot of things are said. That's no guarantee of truth, however. Ask anyone who's worked in catering...

Well, their competitors are being paid for by the viewers, just in a different way, in their weekly shop.

Fair point. They're not getting government funding, however.

Sorry, I've missed your point here, I can't think of any digital channel or programme that pulls in anywhere near that figure. Last week's top rated digital programme was 'The Inbetweeners' on E4 with 3.72 million (well ahead of 2nd place 'An Idiot Abroad' on Sky with 1.65m). Are you just talking specifically about the BBC1 & 2?

Yes, I was talking about BBC 1 and 2. The BBC can produce shows that pull in those audiences, so I don't see that losing the digotal channels and putting the new output back onto the main channels would be a huge problem for them.

I concede the point about TV giudes in newspapers, though I wasn't being entirely serious.

If you're browsing with a Sky (or other) remote, you can press that little 'information' button which more often than not these days has a brief programme/episode synopsis.

This is very true (I have cable, so I am familiar with the setup). I can't say the synopses offered are much use half the time though. Take a recent episode of Star Trek Voyager I came across on my scanning through to see what was on. The synopsis was 'the crew of the USS Voyager answers a distress call'. Well that helps!

I still stand by my original points, however: cuts have to be made somewhere, and no-one wants their organisation to be cut, and ease of viewing of one's favourite TV shows by repeating them ad nauseum on a multitude of channels should not be a top priority when it comes to responses to a serious economic situation.

The situation is simply that we are so far in debt in this country now that the taxpayers have to pay a little more back and the government has to cut back on its spending. Part of their spending includes the BBC.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Everyone I know who has a TV also possesses a VCR, a DVD recorder or a digital box capable of recording (or a combination of all three).

Actually we own none of the above!

One of the advantages of repeats is it allows you to enjoy a program without that program dominating your schedule - "can't come out tonight it's Eastenders".

I wish over here they repeated Outrageous Fortune - fortunately we can catch up via either the computer or PS3.

I think repeats - to an extent make sense. It makes sense to show Have I Got News more than once in a week - it's pretty damn wierd when they show 3 year old shows on cable though as you're all "what DID happen this week" ....

I mean to an extent we're only about 10 years into TV being a 24 hour thing. It used to be off for long periods of time. I remember as a kid it would only really come on between about 11am to 1pm then about 4pm until 12am. So it's now on over twice as much as it used to be, on many more channels, and those channels need to be filled ...