SP
The distinct difference is the channels in question exist purely to extract money from people phoning in, and don't rely on attracting sizeable audiences. Smile TV essentially only needs one viewer at any one time, providing they phone in. Other channels aim to provide informative or entertaining programming. I'd say that's a fairly clear-cut distinction which could form the basis for some kind of quality control.
Having said that, with the likes of Ideal World having signed up on Freeview until the year 2250 or whatever, I'll concede it's sadly probably too late in the day to introduce something like this.
Jugalug posted:
But who's going to decide what's worth keeping and what isn't? Something you like might be terrible to another person.
The distinct difference is the channels in question exist purely to extract money from people phoning in, and don't rely on attracting sizeable audiences. Smile TV essentially only needs one viewer at any one time, providing they phone in. Other channels aim to provide informative or entertaining programming. I'd say that's a fairly clear-cut distinction which could form the basis for some kind of quality control.
Having said that, with the likes of Ideal World having signed up on Freeview until the year 2250 or whatever, I'll concede it's sadly probably too late in the day to introduce something like this.
RO
But outwith the public sector, it's all a means to the same end of turning over a profit. I think it would be wrong to see channels putting out programming that perhaps better masks this ultimate aim as being inherently more valuable than ones which very explicitly aim to capitalise on its viewers.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
Spencer For Hire posted:
The distinct difference is the channels in question exist purely to extract money from people phoning in, and don't rely on attracting sizeable audiences. Smile TV essentially only needs one viewer at any one time, providing they phone in.
Other channels aim to provide informative or entertaining programming
. I'd say that's a fairly clear-cut distinction which could form the basis for some kind of quality control.
But outwith the public sector, it's all a means to the same end of turning over a profit. I think it would be wrong to see channels putting out programming that perhaps better masks this ultimate aim as being inherently more valuable than ones which very explicitly aim to capitalise on its viewers.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
SP
But as I've already pointed out, Freeview plays the biggest role of all platforms in encouraging viewers to switch to digital. Having channels on DTT which don't need to attract even a modest sized audience to turn a profit seems rather unhelpful in this respect.
Barney Boo posted:
But outwith the public sector, it's all a means to the same end of turning over a profit. I think it would be wrong to see channels putting out programming that perhaps better masks this ultimate aim as being inherently more valuable than ones which very explicitly aim to capitalise on its viewers.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
But as I've already pointed out, Freeview plays the biggest role of all platforms in encouraging viewers to switch to digital. Having channels on DTT which don't need to attract even a modest sized audience to turn a profit seems rather unhelpful in this respect.
MQ
But as I've already pointed out, Freeview plays the biggest role of all platforms in encouraging viewers to switch to digital. Having channels on DTT which don't need to attract even a modest sized audience to turn a profit seems rather unhelpful in this respect.
But that's the point - the market is a more than adequate arbiter of 'quality'. Again, if a channel can't make money, they'll shut down. If they can make money, then that means there is merit in the channel continuing. I don't see anything remotely incongruous with that and the objective of promoting digital TV.
Spencer For Hire posted:
Barney Boo posted:
But outwith the public sector, it's all a means to the same end of turning over a profit. I think it would be wrong to see channels putting out programming that perhaps better masks this ultimate aim as being inherently more valuable than ones which very explicitly aim to capitalise on its viewers.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
But as I've already pointed out, Freeview plays the biggest role of all platforms in encouraging viewers to switch to digital. Having channels on DTT which don't need to attract even a modest sized audience to turn a profit seems rather unhelpful in this respect.
But that's the point - the market is a more than adequate arbiter of 'quality'. Again, if a channel can't make money, they'll shut down. If they can make money, then that means there is merit in the channel continuing. I don't see anything remotely incongruous with that and the objective of promoting digital TV.
SP
But as I've already pointed out, Freeview plays the biggest role of all platforms in encouraging viewers to switch to digital. Having channels on DTT which don't need to attract even a modest sized audience to turn a profit seems rather unhelpful in this respect.
But that's the point - the market is a more than adequate arbiter of 'quality'. Again, if a channel can't make money, they'll shut down. If they can make money, then that means there is merit in the channel continuing. I don't see anything remotely incongruous with that and the objective of promoting digital TV.
I fail to see how a channel on DTT which doesn't need to attract many viewers to be viable is going to attract viewers to Freeview.
Mr Q posted:
Spencer For Hire posted:
Barney Boo posted:
But outwith the public sector, it's all a means to the same end of turning over a profit. I think it would be wrong to see channels putting out programming that perhaps better masks this ultimate aim as being inherently more valuable than ones which very explicitly aim to capitalise on its viewers.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
But as I've already pointed out, Freeview plays the biggest role of all platforms in encouraging viewers to switch to digital. Having channels on DTT which don't need to attract even a modest sized audience to turn a profit seems rather unhelpful in this respect.
But that's the point - the market is a more than adequate arbiter of 'quality'. Again, if a channel can't make money, they'll shut down. If they can make money, then that means there is merit in the channel continuing. I don't see anything remotely incongruous with that and the objective of promoting digital TV.
I fail to see how a channel on DTT which doesn't need to attract many viewers to be viable is going to attract viewers to Freeview.
MQ
But as I've already pointed out, Freeview plays the biggest role of all platforms in encouraging viewers to switch to digital. Having channels on DTT which don't need to attract even a modest sized audience to turn a profit seems rather unhelpful in this respect.
But that's the point - the market is a more than adequate arbiter of 'quality'. Again, if a channel can't make money, they'll shut down. If they can make money, then that means there is merit in the channel continuing. I don't see anything remotely incongruous with that and the objective of promoting digital TV.
I fail to see how a channel on DTT which doesn't need to attract many viewers to be viable is going to attract viewers to Freeview.
If there were a channel which could make more money through attracting viewers, then I would be happy to see them enter into a mutally advantageous transaction with one of the existing gaming channels to broadcast on the slot.
At the end of the day, even if you set aside the gaming channels, Freeview has an incredibly diverse range of content on offer. If people aren't attracted to Freeview by what's already there, it's not clear to me that if you added a few extra 'informative' or 'entertainment' channels that you'd make the proposition substantially more appealing for them.
Spencer For Hire posted:
Mr Q posted:
Spencer For Hire posted:
Barney Boo posted:
But outwith the public sector, it's all a means to the same end of turning over a profit. I think it would be wrong to see channels putting out programming that perhaps better masks this ultimate aim as being inherently more valuable than ones which very explicitly aim to capitalise on its viewers.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
I do believe that it is impossible for a third party to be able to judge that public value line, and I do come back to the whole self-regulating markets argument that if it really wasn't in enough people's interest, no-one would be watching, they wouldn't be making any money, and probably won't be in a position to outbid on spectrum auctions.
But as I've already pointed out, Freeview plays the biggest role of all platforms in encouraging viewers to switch to digital. Having channels on DTT which don't need to attract even a modest sized audience to turn a profit seems rather unhelpful in this respect.
But that's the point - the market is a more than adequate arbiter of 'quality'. Again, if a channel can't make money, they'll shut down. If they can make money, then that means there is merit in the channel continuing. I don't see anything remotely incongruous with that and the objective of promoting digital TV.
I fail to see how a channel on DTT which doesn't need to attract many viewers to be viable is going to attract viewers to Freeview.
If there were a channel which could make more money through attracting viewers, then I would be happy to see them enter into a mutally advantageous transaction with one of the existing gaming channels to broadcast on the slot.
At the end of the day, even if you set aside the gaming channels, Freeview has an incredibly diverse range of content on offer. If people aren't attracted to Freeview by what's already there, it's not clear to me that if you added a few extra 'informative' or 'entertainment' channels that you'd make the proposition substantially more appealing for them.
MU
Success is not connected with quality or value.
I completely disagree with people who rely on the market to dictate what is good and what isn't. What's that line from Peep Show?...
"People voted for the Nazi government and listen to Coldplay. You can't trust people"
Some people are just gullible.
Mr Q posted:
If they can make money, then that means there is merit in the channel continuing.
Success is not connected with quality or value.
I completely disagree with people who rely on the market to dictate what is good and what isn't. What's that line from Peep Show?...
"People voted for the Nazi government and listen to Coldplay. You can't trust people"
Some people are just gullible.
MU
I seriously doubt anybody would miss Smile TV if it went bankrupt today, except maybe a few very lonely and gullible people. The fact that these people are watching it is actually a good reason for it not to exist, as they could be out socialising with women instead of phoning them up on the telly, and not worrying about their future so much that they ring a TV psychic to be told a load of codswallop.