Delfi Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 And too right if they are going to spend millions on the rights they should show every match across the two channels, red button and online. I wonder whether people would be so bothered if it was available on a Pay Per View basis only rather than relying on the majority to subsidise the viewing preferences of a minority. This is mass coverage on both channels which swamps everything. The assumption appears to be that it's fine to do this because 8.5 million watched one match that lasted a few hours. How many hours of this has there been broadcast in total? No matter which way it's argued, tennis is a minority sport in the UK and the coverage of Wimbledon on a terrestrial paid for channel, even if it is 'only' 2 weeks, is excessive IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
snowman Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Wimbledon's an oddity. Most people aren't THAT interested in Tennis, but many I know suddenly become real fans over the Wimbledon fortnight. Sure it's not mainstream like football, but people DO get into it during Wimbledon - You could argue if it wasn't on the BBC maybe they wouldn't care, but I'd rather it than hours of cricket (Thank God Sky have the Ashes! ) and there's plenty of football for people who believe it's the only sport that matters. If it's not football or some motor racing, what other sport is less 'minority' than Tennis? 8.5 Million people cared enough to watch it rather than something else, even if they don't want to play or watch other matches throughout the year. No matter which way it's argued, tennis is a minority sport in the UK and the coverage of Wimbledon on a terrestrial paid for channel, even if it is 'only' 2 weeks, is excessive IMO. That's 8.5 million versus you, I guess that make YOU the minority here Personally, I'd rather the BBC showed ALL the grand slams than the wall to wall Diana style news coverage Jacko's death has prompted - That (or the tedium of Eastenders) might not be minority, but I'm happy to take a minority interest now and then! Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 That's 8.5 million versus you, I guess that make YOU the minority here How do you figure that exactly? I could argue (in an equally bogus way) that there are 60 million people in this country --- 60-8.5=? That's based on ONE match too. I wonder what the average viewing level is per hour of TV How many millions do you think will be watching the mens final tomorrow? More than the above figure or not? I know where I'd be putting my money. Link to post Share on other sites
snowman Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 So 60m watch TV? mmmm - well I just checked the BARB figures and the MOST who watched Eastenders (the top watched programme on the BBC) was 8.5 million... Only just over 9m watched Coronation St. Who cares how many watch the Men's final? How many watched the British GP? How many watched Top Gear? You don't like Tennis, I don't like Football or Cricket (and don't much enjoy watching Tennis either), but it seems wrong to try and paint Wimbledon as GENERALLY unpopular if the 8.5m figure is correct. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 You don't like Tennis, I don't like Football or Cricket (and don't much enjoy watching Tennis either), but it seems wrong to try and paint Wimbledon as GENERALLY unpopular if the 8.5m figure is correct. You appear to have missed the point once again. That was for ONE match involving a British national and will certainly not reflect the average viewing figures at all. If your assertion regarding the popularity of the sport is correct then surely the final would attract more viewers. Further, I doubt that there are many people in this country who don't have access to a TV should they want to watch an event out of choice. Polls are not based on who holds a licence. It's also wrong to try to compare a long running soap/series to a one-off event. The whole thing involves two weeks of blanket coverage paid for by licence payers and that's what I object to. Also, at no point did I say that I didn't like tennis either. If I want to watch cricket or football (which are MUCH more popular) then, generally speaking, I have to pay for extra that. Link to post Share on other sites
w733commando Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 If it upsets you so much why not write a letter of complaint to the BBC instead of moaning on an airsoft forum? Link to post Share on other sites
snowman Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 You appear to have missed the point once again. That was for ONE match involving a British national and will certainly not reflect the average viewing figures at all. If your assertion regarding the popularity of the sport is correct then surely the final would attract more viewers. No idea - I was challenging your assertion that Wimbledon is a minority interest - Clearly THIS game wasn't, since more people watched it than virtually ANYTHING else on TV. How were the BBC to know which games Murray (or another British player) might be in? Further, I doubt that there are many people in this country who don't have access to a TV should they want to watch an event out of choice. Polls are not based on who holds a licence. It's also wrong to try to compare a long running soap/series to a one-off event. .... If I want to watch cricket or football (which are MUCH more popular) then, generally speaking, I have to pay for extra that. Not sure I understand ANY of the points you're trying to make there... The ratings are extrapolated from a tiny sample of viewers, but the rules are the same for all programmes and the Murray match got more than virtually anything else - Care to name one programme more than 20% of the national population HAVE watched in the last 5 years? (If 14% is 'minority', 20% is clearly 'niche interest' at best!) - I think you'll struggle. The BBC spends a shed load of cash to bring us a tiny number of football matches, btw.. But what do you suggest we DO watch? By your logic NOTHING should be free and people should have to pay for exactly what THEY want to watch (or have to suffer ads in everything...) This is fast becoming a 'Why do we pay for the BBC?' discussion, rather than a "Why do the Beeb show popular events I don't enjoy?" one.... I have to agree with w733 - What are you looking for here? Sympathy? Clearly LOTS of people like watching Wimbledon, so why SHOULDN'T they get coverage paid for out of THEIR share of the licence fee? I don't much like football, but I don't complain that the BBC spend money on Football matches (I hate cricket, so I object to that existing on principle ) anymore than I complain about the Glastonbury coverage or Eastenders or Holby or Newsnight Review or Desert Island Discs... A SHARE of the money the BBC spend is BOUND to go on things you don't think are worthwhile, end of story... Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites
w733commando Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Last years final had 13.1m viewers (almost half of Britain's TV audience) and this one is likely to have more, so obviously the public do enjoy watching tennis. Who are people expecting to win today? Roddick shouldn't be underestimated but I can't realistically see him beating Federer. Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Well, firstly there is no coverage of cricket (=no money) on the BBC anymore and football is pretty much limited to highlights (apart from tournaments every 4 years) . The same goes for both codes of rugby. This is all to do with what the government decides are the 'Crown Jewels' of sport. Details here. Note that only 'finals' are mentioned in the primary list. Regarding Murray, the BBC didn't know which games he would be in at all but the whole schedule on the primary channel was shifted around to accommodate the latest British 'star'. Your assessment of my logic is nearly correct. Remember that the BBC isn't free either. My view is that you should either put up with adverts and/or pay for subscriptions. And yes, I am vehemently opposed to a TV licence fee. It never fails to amaze non Brits that we actually have to buy a licence to own a TV (or risk getting a criminal record). Whether this excessive coverage of a minority (get over it, it is! ) sport is a FAIR share of the licence payers money is a moot point. It almost smacks of the BBC desperately trying to look like they can compete with the commercial operators. The vast majority of what the BBC shows is of no interest to me at all. Link to post Share on other sites
snowman Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Amercian TV is primarily junk (sure they have some good series, but go over there and watch TV a few evenings in a row...) and lots of Americans and Europeans I know love the BBC programmes they watch. Everyone's a minority, that's the point you seem determined to ignore... I don't mind paying a small amount for decent TV programmes and I don't mind some of the money I contribute going to fund things I don't particularly enjoy. If you feel that strongly, disconnect your aerial/Dish and just watch DVDs... Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Amercian TV is primarily junk (sure they have some good series, but go over there and watch TV a few evenings in a row...) and lots of Americans and Europeans I know love the BBC programmes they watch. British TV is primarily junk too. It's also worth pointing out that a lot of the popular series on the likes of Sky1 are US made. I have lived and worked in the US (and several other countries outside of the UK) so I have, a you suggest, been 'over there'. Disconnecting a dish/aerial is not enough if you own a TV either. It is still a legal requirement to buy a licence because the kit is capable of receiving a signal. You're correct when you add that everyone is in a minority BUT they're all being forced to pay for a majority of stuff that they don't want to watch. That's the point you seem to completely miss. It's akin to being a vegan and being forced to pay for a full Sunday roast D Link to post Share on other sites
elrey Posted July 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Well...all broadcast debate aside , I thought the final today was great. Roddick put up a much greater fight than I had expected. Too bad he blew it when the second set was on his racquet; he'll remember that backhand volley for a long time. It was nice of Sampras to show up just to see his record get broken. Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I thought Roddick was very gracious in defeat and his apology to Sampras was very witty ... but then it only took 30 seconds to report that on the news Link to post Share on other sites
pokethepope Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Disconnecting a dish/aerial is not enough if you own a TV either. It is still a legal requirement to buy a licence because the kit is capable of receiving a signal. Im not sure what you are arguing here, care to clarify? If it is that you want a TV to watch DVD's and plays video games, you dont need a licence if you are not watching live TV. Its a grey area over wether simply not having an aerial connected is enough in the eyes of the law, buts its fairly simple to remove the tuner, and then you dont need a licence for that address, and can watch DVD's and play games on your TV. Or are you saying that it is unfair, because, for example, you want to pay for Sky TV, but not pay a licence on top because you don't watch the BBC channels? Although i'm a firm supporter of the licence, I think a concession should be made for this, whereby you can have Sky block the BBC channels and then only have to pay the Sky subscription. All that being said, though, I cant see how the licence has any realistic future. When i'm at uni I cant get a signal (anal or dig) so just watch programmes on the online on-demand players (iPlayer, 4OD etc). Its free, don't need a licence, its decent quality, and the vast majority of the BBC, ITV and C5 programmes are on there, and all of C4's back catalouge and current programmes as well). The incentive for a licence is decreasing when you can get most of the channels a couple of hours after they were broadcast. Tying this post back to the topic, its the live sport, such as Wimbledon, and american imports that are the reason I still pay the licence, because the latter is mostly not available for free on-demand, and the former I actually want to watch live. Link to post Share on other sites
snowman Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 British TV is primarily junk too. It's also worth pointing out that a lot of the popular series on the likes of Sky1 are US made. Yeah, I kind of know that by the fact that they speak with funny voices... I have lived and worked in the US (and several other countries outside of the UK) so I have, a you suggest, been 'over there'. Good for you Disconnecting a dish/aerial is not enough if you own a TV either. It is still a legal requirement to buy a licence because the kit is capable of receiving a signal. You're correct when you add that everyone is in a minority BUT they're all being forced to pay for a majority of stuff that they don't want to watch. That's the point you seem to completely miss. It's akin to being a vegan and being forced to pay for a full Sunday roast I think you're wrong - I don't believe a TV does require a license, but a dish or aerial does. Your analogy is ok, but it's more like being a vegan and being forced to pay for a cheap sausage... Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I think you're wrong - I don't believe a TV does require a license, but a dish or aerial does. This is what it says on the licensing website: If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system, or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence. To me this suggests that if a device can display TV programmes (whether you use it for that or not) then you do need a licence. To back this assertion up, any time that you buy a TV or TV signal receiving equpment from a retailer they take your details (which are no doubt passed on to licencing authorites). This happened to me recently when I bought a USB freeview receiver too! PTP: I'm saying that the system is inherently unfair and I agree that the BBC channels should be an option. I also think that they have a different role to play whilst they are paid for in the current manner. Content has become 'dumbed down' in recent years as the Beeb try to compete with their commercial rivals. I think this is a mistake and the 'quality' programming so admired overseas is what the Beeb should be concentrating on. I also agree that the licence is becoming a very dated concept - more so as broadband becomes more widespread, transfer speeds increase and net capable PC's become ubiquitous. It's sad because I can see an argument for it and it's easy to forget the other services that the BBC offer (principally radio and internet) that the fee funds. If live sport is your thing then there's a solution - pay for it. I'd quite like to watch (some of) the Ashes series this summer and guess what? I have to pay for it. I certainly wouldn't expect any of it to be broadcast on mainsteam TV either. It's easy enough to put sports of all forms on one of a multitude of extra channels out there for those that want to watch it. 'Fill yer boots' is what I say. Link to post Share on other sites
snowman Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 This is what it says on the licensing website: To me this suggests that if a device can display TV programmes (whether you use it for that or not) then you do need a licence. To back this assertion up, any time that you buy a TV or TV signal receiving equpment from a retailer they take your details (which are no doubt passed on to licencing authorites). This happened to me recently when I bought a USB freeview receiver too! PTP: I'm saying that the system is inherently unfair and I agree that the BBC channels should be an option. I also think that they have a different role to play whilst they are paid for in the current manner. Content has become 'dumbed down' in recent years as the Beeb try to compete with their commercial rivals. I think this is a mistake and the 'quality' programming so admired overseas is what the Beeb should be concentrating on. I also agree that the licence is becoming a very dated concept - more so as broadband becomes more widespread, transfer speeds increase and net capable PC's become ubiquitous. It's sad because I can see an argument for it and it's easy to forget the other services that the BBC offer (principally radio and internet) that the fee funds. If live sport is your thing then there's a solution - pay for it. I'd quite like to watch (some of) the Ashes series this summer and guess what? I have to pay for it. I certainly wouldn't expect any of it to be broadcast on mainsteam TV either. It's easy enough to put sports of all forms on one of a multitude of extra channels out there for those that want to watch it. 'Fill yer boots' is what I say. Well Wimbledon's over now and the BBC are wasting MY license fee letting people who can't sit by the TV all day listen to The Ashes (or possibly two old duffers wibble on about buses and cakes) on the radio - Outrageous! On the point of the licence, the extract you gave starts with the info about a digibox - The assumption there is that the digibox is to receive TV pictures, which is why it allows you to use one with something other than a TV. A TV itself doesn't need a license, you need one to receive the signal and watch in real time (You really need one to watch live TV on the internet, too, btw, but not iPlayer as that's not live). I'm not sure 'pay TV' IS the answer - Fine if you only like MAINSTREAM sports like Football or Cricket, but where's the swimming, Tennis, Sportscar racing, Rally, cycling or athletics coverage on Sky or the now defunct Setanta? Pay TV only pays when there's a huge market of mugs ready to cough up stupid amounts of money to watch over paid nancy boys troll around a pitch for 90 minutes and you wonder if it really would pay then if it wasn't for the number of Pubs that lure the same people in to watch the matches for free and then get it back on the drinks they buy... Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 On the point of the licence, the extract you gave starts with the info about a digibox - The assumption there is that the digibox is to receive TV pictures, 'or another device' is the key ... it lists things that potentially can't receive a TV signal as being legal to have without a licence. Try negating the statement I quoted. Why do you get your details taken when you buy a TV or other receiving device (not an aerial or dish as you previously claimed)? No need to answer that ... it's a rhetorical question. It's all to do with purpose and not actual use. You didn't actually ever believe that TV detector vans detected TV's did you? Your argument against 'Pay TV' seems to be that minority sports wouldn't be viable because people wouldn't pay enough for them. In a true free market so it goes and that makes my point perfectly Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.