Brits believe in universal access to free TV

[rolfw]

Research shows UK consumers believe in subscription-free TV for all – even those who pay-to-view

Free TV’s position as a national treasure should be protected for future generations says Freeview, as it reveals the results of online research into consumer views and attitudes about television.

Press release from http://www.freeview.co.uk/articles/about-us/press-releases/brits-believe-in-universal-access-to-free-tv.html

We have to keep a very careful watch on government over this, as if we don't, free terrestrial TV could become a thing of the past.

 

[Agorima]

Many Italians believe that paying for more coverage of the sports and brand new crap movies is right.

And no, it's not an irony

 

[Lazarus]

Beats paying Taxes instead! (My Wife is from an Italian family)

 

[rolfw]

Many Italians believe that paying for more coverage of the sports and brand new crap movies is right.

And no, it's not an irony

I believe that Italy has a fairly healthy number of free to air digital terrestrial channels and I'm pretty sure that if they were to disappear they'd be equally annoyed.

 

[Agorima]

Beats paying Taxes instead! (My Wife is from an Italian family)

The tax burden is very high because of the people who avoid the taxes and send the money outside Italy.
The licence fee is avoided by about 40% of the people, but they want to watch pay-tv, selfishly.
And so, how is it possible to arise the quality of our terrestrial television?

I believe that Italy has a fairly healthy number of free to air digital terrestrial channels and I'm pretty sure that if they were to disappear they'd be equally annoyed.

There are too many channels in Italy (I can receive about 150 channels, excluding the pay-tv channels of Mediaset Premium), and 80% of these channels are crap.
The channels showing the lotto predictions and teleselling surely won't be missed.

 

[rolfw]

Are you saying you can receive 150 channels on terrestrial TV?

 

[Agorima]

Are you saying you can receive 150 channels on terrestrial TV?

Yep, about 150 channels on DTT and some radios.
And I'm talking about my area.
Adding the other local channels on the other regions, you can see that the terrestrial television is very crowded.

 

[rolfw]

So people would miss them if they weren't there, or had to pay for them all?

 

[Agorima]

So people would miss them if they weren't there, or had to pay for them all?

Well, I said that the channels showing lotto predictions and teleselling won't be missed. These are useless.

It will be surely a different matter when a good thematic channel will disappear.

All the 150 channels mentioned are free on DTT, but, to see the most interesting things, you must pay.
Even the Olympic Games are on pay-tv (and I'm searching for alternatives to only 100 hours on Cielo, the terrestrial channel owned by SKY, or RAI, if the public television will get the reduced coverage for Sochi 2014)

RAI is more hated than Sky, because of the licence fee imposed only because you own a television (or something adapted to watch TV).

 

[Captain Jack]

RAI is more hated than Sky, because of the licence fee imposed only because you own a television (or something adapted to watch TV).

Same in UK... Though BBC does produce some good programmes, not including crappy soap operas.

 

[Agorima]

Same in UK... Though BBC does produce some good programmes, not including crappy soap operas.

And you can watch everything on BBC without any ads.

 

[Lazarus]

More or less.

There are occasional complaints about inappropriate "Product Placement", and self-promotion is rife.

But, generally, the BBC is a wonderful Broadcaster. IMHO. And that of millions of others.

 

[Mickha]

But, generally, the BBC is a wonderful Broadcaster. IMHO. And that of millions of others.

Not in my opinion.
I never watch the BBC, or any other British television channel.

I deem the programmes to be of poor intellectual quality, and nowhere near the standards of some of the dedicated satellite channels, like Discovery, History etc.....
Add to that the constant editing, seemingly on every British television channel, both satellite, and terrestrial, and I can't understand why people view it.
Of course if you are only interested in soap operas, second rate comedies, and male nudity, then you can find a lot of that on the BBC.

 

[Agorima]

I deem the programmes to be of poor intellectual quality

In this aspect, Mediaset is at least 100 times worse than the BBC.
No wonder why it's called "trash TV".

 

[Lazarus]

@mickha

Each to their own: Personally I find BBC News, Factual and Documentary output to be peerless.

The garbage you refer to is, I'm afraid, what satisfies viewers of different taste - but they're perfectly entitled to like their Soaps, Comedies etc and the BBC are meeting demand.

Surely it shouldn't be elitist and cater only for a few with highbrow taste (like me!)?

BBC4 and most Radio are best of all.

For mainstream viewing (ie for those without the means or knowledge to look elsewhere than 28E), the Discovery, History etc. stuff you mention is not free at the point of use - and Pay TV really is an elitist product for the relatively wealthy. You can get Attenborough and many of his ilk without a premium payment.

 

[PaulR]

What he said ^^^

I don't think there's a single word I disagree with there. Whilst I would personally consign all reality TV and soaps to the deepest fiery pits of Hell I have to concede that there are those of lesser taste than I who like them.

There are even some decent programmes on commercial free TV as well. Yes, there's the tiresome matter of the adverts but I try to ensure that anything I watch that's non-BBC is recorded so I can zip through the breaks! I would guess that a good 50% or more of my viewing is now time shifted, even if it's just by 15 minutes or so.

 

[Captain Jack]

Odd that Sky insist on showing adverts on their super-expensive subscription movie/sport channels. Strange that other broadcasters don't do that... take a look at Viasat and Canal Digital Nordic. No adverts between films!

 

[Mickha]

@mickha
Each to their own: Personally I find BBC News, Factual and Documentary output to be peerless.

The last BBC documentary, I tried to view, was supposed to be about Archimedes, a great scientist, but instead all the BBC could do was show a naked man running around the streets, not just once, but a few times in the fifteen minutes I watched the programme.
Anyone with the slightest intelligence knows this was an apocryphal story, at best, much the same as the apple falling on Newton's head.
But if this is what you deem to be a peerless documentary, then as you said each to their own.

 

[Lazarus]

I'm sure we can all exemplify exceptions that don't meet our personal preferences but that really does not detract from the quality and breadth of the BBC's output, taken in the round.

Like anyone, I don't watch programmes that don't interest me and do find on rare occasions that a programme that attracted my interest proves disappointing - but the point is that despite the obligation to cater for all tastes, there is much to satisfy all but the most critical and parochial of viewers.

And, of course, it is free at the point of delivery: Ergo, those who don't like it for whatever reason can exercise their choice look elsewhere and dig deep into their pockets for Pay TV. Nothing lost.

Then there are the cohorts of "Expats" and even native Residents of other Countries who clamour for British TV, including the BBC, and who will go to great lengths to receive it (Which rather brings us back to where Agorima started the debate on the article posted by Rolf).

 

[Captain Jack]

BBC has some brilliant documentaries. Horizon and anything Attenborough is a good example. Not to mention Top Gear (yes, I know there are JC/TG haters...)