No I like commercials.
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan ChahI'm not much of a TV watcher. However, I am all for things like Netflix, where I can pay just to see what I want when I want, not everything else. So yeah, I would pay for commercial free TV, but not if it was shown like standard cable TV.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.I already do.
The BBC is well worth the money, I just think that it sometimes needs to be unafraid to being bullied by government.
When I start earing money and properly start paying taxes, I would already be paying for a television channel that is without commercials.
I only wish they would get it into their heads that they are suppose to produce QUALITY and not being another sadistic popularistic fucker of a network.
But besides that, quite decent already, so yeah ^^
^ I read somewhere that the BBC doesn't have freedom of the press as we understand it. The government can waltz in and seize any material, including halting a broadcast they don't like.
I'm a skeptical squirrelThey can TRY, but in practice its like saying "the government can get rid of the queen if it wants to".
As I understand it, the BBC is paid for by the government through taxation, right? What if the BBC were something you paid for, out of pocket, and got your taxes lowered by a commensurate amount as a result? Or if you had the choice between (a) having your taxes pay for the BBC commercial-free, (b) not paying the corresponding taxes but having the BBC on the commercial American model?
edited 23rd Mar '11 12:49:21 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!": I guess the brit way is the same as the Norwegian way, if you have a television and you use it for watching stuff, BBC then collects from its "broadcasting license".
Of course, you could always claim that you do not use the TV for watching TV, and not paying it. Or having it registered in your parents name.
At the least I assume that.
You pay a "TV license" that pays for you to own a TV and also ensures that the BBC gets money.
@johnnyfog: The UK as a whole doesn't have a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech like the US's does. Not that the constitution of the US is honored all that well.
A brighter future for a darker age.Okay, so what if you didn't pay the TV license, or at least the part of it that supports programming, in exchange for having to watch commercials? Or more to the point, in the U.S., if the situation were reversed? Actually, the scenario I had in mind is quite a bit more complex if you read the whole OP, but that's the basic concept.
edited 23rd Mar '11 1:05:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"We gave up cable over a year ago; any TV shows we watch are online (Hulu etc.) and I don't mind watching commercials there. So, I'd rather have commercials even on the Internet.
: If you did not pay the Broadcast license? Then no TV for you. There is no middleground, either you get NRK and can get satellite television besides it, or you do not watch TV from your own appartment.
I guess it would work exactly like satellite broadcasting subscriptions: Not really good.
If you don't pay the TV licesce the TV people come and fine you up to $10,000 dollars (£5000 pounds in real money). And you can't "opt out of it" if you want to watch some form of TV you need a liscence.
And personally, I like it like that.
I'm all for the BBC license fee. Overall great quality of television with no ads which is great. It is a real pain when I want to watch all my favourite US shows which are usually on commercial based channels (apart from Heroes which was on BBC 2) like ITV, Channel 4 or Living TV and the like and having it continuously disrupted by ads which make it hard to get into and get rather tedious. However, I suppose it would be too expensive if most channels came under some form of license fee or subscription for no ads. I'm all for taxing and stuff but that may be a bit much even for my liking and most channels probably like the freedom they get from not being attached to the government so would be impractical anyway :P
edited 23rd Mar '11 3:19:33 PM by PiccoloNo92
I think I'm the only Britlander here who's against that wretched Licence.
Enjoy the Inferno...The question is who would pay it? The market is shifting to be more and more online, so I can't see it being profitable to start up commercial free TV.
edited 23rd Mar '11 5:13:43 PM by thatguythere47
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?At this point, I've given up on avoiding commercials completely, and I'd much rather see them between the segments than in the segments.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulBut then the adspace would be pretty worthless. The entire point of commercials, is that it's marketing a product. It would be pretty ineffective marketing if there was say, fifteen minutes of straight ads between programs, because then people would just switch to a different channel. A channel that tried to do that would go under pretty quickly, because nobody's going to waste money like that.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianEr, perhaps I shouldn't have said "segments." What's the proper term for the bits an episode is divided into when it's aired on TV? "Sections"?
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulMy mom said cable television was originally advertised that it was going to be the end of commercials.
Is she right?
No because I'm a cheapass and I don't watch TV anyway.
If I want to watch a TV show I find it on the internet or I get it on Netflix.
Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.I wouldn't even pay for tv. Computers are probably going to replace them anyways. Just look at netflix!!
My other signature is a Gundam.I'm Scottish. I do. It's worth it.
'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'
We all know that modern television (and radio, but let's assume I'm also including this unless specified otherwise) is primarily commercial-supported. Sure, you pay a subscriber fee to your cable or satellite provider unless you only get over-the-air channels, but we all know that doesn't cover the true cost of providing you with the service. We also all know that ads are annoying and frequently invasive, and that a "30 minute" program is actually 22 minutes because of the need to provide commercial breaks.
Experiments with ad-free TV have been limited, partly by technology — unless you deliver signals in modular, digital form, you'd have to run separate channels to provide ad-free content, not to mention the formatting problems of syncing them up given the above-mentioned 22 minutes per 30 of actual programming. They've also been limited by the fact that a lot of people now consume TV online and/or timeshift it by DVR, allowing them to bypass many if not all of the commercials. Hulu and other Internet TV providers have been hobbled by the difficulty of getting people to pay for the service, plus the networks want them to run ads. Adding to this is the problem of piracy.
So, the question. Do you think that modern television would work as a pay-as-you-go, commercial-free alternative to the current model, especially if you built in the advantages of time-shifting and modular watching?
The scenario: You turn on your TV, but instead of a menu of channels that are running content already in progress, you get a menu of programming (much like current sites like Hulu) that you can choose from. You can pay for each program you watch individually, most likely by using credits that you buy in bulk, and once you pay for a given episode (or season, if you want to buy it all at once), you can watch it as often as you want. Live events would be available in a similar manner. All this available from your home entertainment center in much the same way as your current cable/satellite service.
Can this function as a competitive or superior model to current TV? Most importantly, would it work if you had to pay an amount for any given episode of your favorite show sufficient to allow the networks and studios to earn similar profits to their current model?
What if you had the option to watch any given show with or without ads, paying a lower fee for the former?
Naturally, there would still be free or extremely low-cost programming available, and this might be even more attractive to consumers as an alternative to paid content than it is now.
Who would be the losers in this scenario?
edited 23rd Mar '11 12:30:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"