Yeah I noticed that too, they're compressed to **** so they can fit in all their dumb channels (and the +1 versions in case your brain wasn't melted enough the first time round) on the limited bandwidth they have. Watching Greece vs Russia the other day was almost as bad as an online stream!
Two words - Rupert Murdoch. That's enough reason. It's not a fashion. There is a deep seated dislike of the man in the UK for his politics and his influence, and it has been there since the 1960s. BBC for me. The no-adverts is the winning ticket.
I'd rather have SKY then watch the crap on BBC and ITV, they even repeat programmes and hope no one notices!. You are still paying for BBC, which I think is wrong for the standard of tv. Virgin is a rip, I phoned up asking what my package on SKY would be on theirs £30 more without alot of the main channels.
You what? The TV licence is £12 a month compared with how much for sky? The BBC's output is immeasurably better quality (when have sky ever produced anything remotely approaching the quality of the bbc's nature documentaries for example) and probably has far fewer repeats than on sky...
You notice the repeats more because it's far less channels. £12 a month is a rip, their on about cutting even more of their dramas. BBC used to have a few good dramas but that is slowly going. The BBC is dieing because of the lack of cash, they will end up having to show adverts. Yes I agree with the nature docs, but SKY are catching up quickly.
It's not a question of quality v quality. It's a principle. Anything else is BS to cover the main issue.
£12 a month pays for the many TV channels, all showing original content, radio stations including the peerless 6music and radio 4, and loads of local radio stations which provides a vital service areas of the country that no commercial broadcaster would even consider, a world-class news outlet investigating stuff that sky news would certainly never touch (like, er, how its owners are hacking the phones of dead girls for example), a website which dictates the trends of web design and development throughout the world and brings us incredible innovations like the iplayer (since copied by sky), loads of other stuff that I can't be bothered to even get into, and you think it's a rip-off? How much do you pay for sky and what of any value does it contribute to the country other than sport coverage (the merits of which are very debatable)? I suggest you re-evaluate your concept of value. And you're going to be waiting a long time for sky to produce anything like planet earth etc. Like forever.
The BBC use to be good plenty of good programmes, docs etc etc. But because they keep cutting costs to be able to afford to pay their fat cat owners. The standard has slipped badly. People like TheSecondStain choose not to buy it because of the SKY owners, that's up to them. I'm not arguing with that , all i'm saying is BBC's standard is slipping badly. No point in talking about ITV
Well said PSF. Let me add that I could bring out my old post on the rip-off that is SKY TV, but I won't because I've told the story 3 times already. on two different forums, and several people have actually bothered to read it, so I won't bore you with it. To my satisfaction, I know I have tipped wavering SKY viewers into ditching their subscriptions after reading that post, because they've PM'ed me to say their thanks. If you're hooked on SKY, then you're hooked on SKY. It's upto you and you have freedom of choice. It's just that I would never allow myself [talking personally only here] to become such a slave to the one-eyed lodger.
BBC for me with 5 live on if possible .....I refuse to put my money in Murdochs pockets , the man is scum
I watch sky first, BBC second, followed by ITV if all the other options have nothing on. I got Sky at a special price 2 years ago, and then just threatened to leave if they would'nt do me a deal for the next year - they actually bettered the previous deal so I get Sky sports plus everything but the movie channels for £18 a month. I wouldn't pay full price but am ok with what I pay now. I don't have any moral issues with watching Sky, because I'm not influenced by Murdoch's agenda directly as I can make reasoned decisions, and if he wasn't selling it, someone else would be. I also like Gary Neville as a pundit (much to my surprise, I'll admit) as he is knowledgeable and makes some intelligent and insightful comments.
Fat cat owners? The BBC is owned by the public! Sky on the other hand... They're forced to cut costs because people like you complain about having to pay for it, while shelling out far more for an inferior product. That and because of Murdoch's influence on politicians of course.
Fair enough, but it's not just the influence of his agenda on news coverage, it's also the fact you're giving him money which he can use to further his agenda politically, which combined with the news agenda is extremely powerful. As for Neville, now he's got a job with the England team will he be continuing as a pundit?
I have the right to complain as I am being made to pay, I can't opt out or I wouldn't be allowed to have a tv. The fat cat owner part I will change to fat cat producers, directors and higher up staff.
Well I agree with you there, it's undoubtedly true that the BBC has staff which are paid too much, but it's also true that they spend a far greater proportion of their income making original quality programmes than Sky do.
Surely the prob with Aunty Beeb is she has far too many channels (TV, radio, Internet) compared to 10 to 15 years ago and the licence fee has failed to keep up?
Agreed I like the BBC (specially the no advert part) but it's standard is slipping. That's why I can see it starting adverts in a few years.
