Hi Freemen,

Just been playing with a calculator and here's what I come up with. I am a Virgin Media cable TV customer and receive 165 channels from my TV package and have compared the cost per-channel- per-week with the 6 BBC Channels and Licence fee. Feel free to check my figures in case I got it wrong

Virgin Media: 165 TV Channels @ £27.50 per month (I actually pay £21.50 pm with a VM landline) equals £6.40 per week divided by 165 (channels) equals cost per-channel-per-week is: £0.03 pence; Ithink thats right but I'm not sure what my calc is telling me, but it could be one third of 1 pence for each channel. Any maths buffs out there to check it?

BBC: 6 TV Channels @ £142.50 per year (TVL fee) = £2.74 per week divided by 6 (channels) equals cost per channel per week is: £0.47 pence.

Sky TV offer over 200 Channels for £23.00 per month and is roughly comparible to V.M. for value.

If the BBC Channels came at the same price as V.Ms, the estimated TV Licence Fee would cost £9.36 per year, so where the hell is all the Licence revenue going? Given that the quality of BBC programmes are so poor they're not worth bloody watching and most of them are repeats.

I can cancel all my contracted (voluntary entered into) Virgin Media Services (TV, Phone, Broadband) with one months notice. Yet I cannot cancel/refuse the BBC programmes or Licence fee even though I don't watch the BBC. What I do know is that there is a massive difference between 3 pence p.ch.p.wk and 47 pence p.ch.p.wk. The BBC Channels are working out at over 15.5 times more than VMs or if you prefer; paying £1.00 for a loaf at Asda and paying £15.50 for the same loaf at Tesco. Extortion or What? I have surfed the Forum on the TVL issues but not all; if someone else has already thought of this, then my apologies.

Incidently, V.M. channals include all BBC TV; I take it then that if V.M. receive the BBC broadcasts first, then send them to me down the cable, then I must already be paying my licence fee to V.M seeing as the BBC signals are not being received via an arial. Any comments on that anyone?

James:

jimtib wrote:Incidently, V.M. channals include all BBC TV; I take it then that if V.M. receive the BBC broadcasts first, then send them to me down the cable, then I must already be paying my licence fee to V.M seeing as the BBC signals are not being received via an arial. Any comments on that anyone?

:

This is true..
When the analogue signal was still in use, if you switched between BBC analogue then to BBC on Sky, or digital, there was always a second or two delay. That proves that the programme you get via Sky or digital is not technically transmitted "live".

Also, since digital tv has started, many TV sets dont actually pick up the signal.. It is the digi box that picks up the signal and then to the TV, so again, many TV's are incapable of receiving live broadcasts and therefore we shouldnt need a licence for them .

Buzz

Well, let's just look at it logically first.

You quote prices and VFM - fair enough, no problem there, better maths than I do

BUT - we must remember, the advertisers SUPPLEMENT the cost of those two commercial outfits buying/producing their programming, meaning the Beeb is not receiving commercial money (supposedly). So, your argument is moot on costs on the basis shown, but...

When we also remember the beeb, through it's 'arms-length' subsidiary, BBC Worldwide, gets a veritable barrow full of our 'money' from the EU, this does make your argument not only viable, but credible.

They are in breach of their charter and trust terms on a daily basis by being funded, in part and under the table, by the EU themselves and we all know what the agenda will be there - hence the BBC's pro EU bias.

A very good post Jimtib, highlighting the hidden costs of ALL of the media...incidentally, who decides on the programmes shown on commercial TV anyway? What would their agenda be? Who would be paying the bills for that? Ditto the BBC....There IS a reason it is called programming - ask a computer geek.

Keep it going and let's get to the bottom of it, cos if they want to program me (which they can't - no TV) I would like to know how much they are willing to spend...then I'll know how important it is for them.....

Ever wondered how you can get free/cheap digi boxes? Who pays the remainder, the gov?, the industry? Why is it so important I get DIGITAL TV? Who is paying to upgrade the ENTIRE transmission network....The BBC is responsible for it so it is all one, big, machine, built to hypnotise us and insert 'programs' into our alpha-state minds. Please, check this....plenty of evidence exists on TV/flickering screens and hypnosis/brain states, do you and yours a favour - even if you consider yourself 'awake' - THROW OUT THE BOX! Write to TV Licence and TELL them you no longer have a thought control device in the corner - they don't like it up them, Capt. Mainwaring!

Look at these things critically, people - money is never wasted on the herd, unless it benefits the farmer - simple economics of farming

BBD

Does anyone else find TV extremely annoying now you are awake? I mute all ad breaks now, they just give me a headache, all news shows are as transparent as glass, it all just screams BULLSHIT to me now. Waste of money, time and brain cells. Anyone stupid enough to pay TVL should give their 'ead a wobble!

and why the push for superfast broadband - that we all NEED apparently(!) - oh, and to get it there will be a tax on everybody - hurrah! lucky us

But you dont get Jonathan Ross on Virgin Media.

jonboy wrote:Does anyone else find TV extremely annoying now you are awake? I mute all ad breaks now, they just give me a headache, all news shows are as transparent as glass, it all just screams BULLSHIT to me now. Waste of money, time and brain cells. Anyone stupid enough to pay TVL should give their 'ead a wobble!

Here!Here!

I gave up TV years ago.

If there is a show I want to watch its recorded, ads skipped... but the interesting stuff is elsewhere! bbc5.tv, topdcoumentaryfilms.com etc...

Personally I say ditch the TV and get everything you might want to watch off of the net, far better subject matter and usually you can watch it when you want to not when you've been programed to.

sam

I wold like to join a forum thats specifically for people who have boycotted TV. I reckon theres a vast difference between the views of people who watch TV and the people who dont. For example, will TV watchers be likely to see Robert Mugabe as someone who has been using "quantatitive easing"?

The state scepticism that is increasing daily has now fueled a market for some television channels and programming schedules to cater to, but if these channels and programmes were truly the state sceptics that they are attempting to lead, why are we still waiting for a D-Notice leak from any of them?

samsmith wrote:Personally I say ditch the TV and get everything you might want to watch off of the net, far better subject matter and usually you can watch it when you want to not when you've been programed to.

sam

I agree, ive now been tv-less coming up 10 months now, and don't miss it one bit. It's funny now watching people in say hospital waiting rooms where they seem to have a tv in every one of them, sat with their eyes on the box, mesmorized.

Also ditch the newspapers too. full of spin and crap.

And FFS once you have cleared your debt, never ever buy anything on credit again.

Im currently sat at home waiting for the tv inspecter to call, video cam at the ready after being told via letter in december " OFFICIAL WARNING - THIS PROPERTY IS UNDER INVESTIGATION"