Why is Freeview so pants?!
Question: Surely they can make their money with ads on freeview so why not have more channels on it
Answers: Surely they can make their money with ads on freeview so why not have more channels on it
Freeview's content does seem a little limited, but no doubt Sky has something to do with that. As for its reception, there is much that needs to be done before the "switch-off" (of analogue signals) in terms of transmitters and boosters.
Wilfred .. It isnt free though, the box costs money to buy.
All TV is pants.
i only have the freeview channels, I love it , but admittedly I mainly watch BBC 3 and 4, so miss all the adverts
what the heck does pants mean??
cos ur sposed to live life, not watch it on TV ;)
look at the name it is free so what do you expect cannot rellay complain for something thats is basically free
I'm quite pleased with the content on Freeview, especially considering its free.
I have one reservation and that is the signal is really bad in some areas and you need a special (more expensive) aerial.
The packages on sky are pants, you get a pile of stuff you don't want and you have to pay a subscription! Considering the revenue they must get from the endless commercials, they should be able to give it away to the punters.
The TV license, now that is pants, worse its daylight robbery.
The bbc seems to be above the law in this respect, I would rather have endless commercials or a subscription than the license... oops we have that already don't we?
You get what you pay for, springs to mind, that said, I pay over ￡100 a year for BBC and that is pants too!
Because it is free....
In fact what am I talking about ALL t.v is a waste of time!!
Watching t.v is like spraying black spray paint on your third eye... ;0)
tv=pants
jane
Because its free.
We have a basic Sky Package and thats pants too. We'd prefer Freeview as we really can't afford Sky, but as we live in an area mainly inhabited by sheep (ie a bit remote) our local transmitter is not "set up" to receive Freeview yet (and won't be until the Digital Switchover of 2010) so if we want anything more than a sh!tty, fuzzy analogue signal we have to get ripped off by Sky. Its really annoying.
At least you're not having to pay for the priviledge of watching shite like we are!
depends on what you like.some good progs on there .it only cost 20.00 what do you expect.
Of course, Freeview isn't actually free. It's run by the BBC, so everybody pays for Freeview through their TV licence. Money from advertising on Freeview goes to the individual channels rather than the BBC though. So money from adverts on ITV2 goes to ITV, money from adverts on E4 or More 4 goes to Channel 4, e.t.c.
So channels on Freeview with adverts pretty much pay for themselves. For that reason I think the number of channels on Freeview will gradually increase. Keep in mind, however, that channels financed through advertising tend to be of lower quality overall than public service channels.
It's all a matter of personal taste of course, but I quite like the freeview channels. I really enjoy BBC3, BBC4 and News 24, and I reckon ITV2 and ITV3 have better content than the main ITV channel. Also Channel 4+1 is great if you miss a programme that was on Channel 4 an hour before hand.
I actually pay a monthly subscription for a Virgin media package, and I end up mainly watching the freeview channels anyway, because there's seldom anything worth watching on any of the others. Virgin's on-demand service is worth the monthly fee though, which is why continue to subscribe.
agreed
at least you change your pants when you want you cant change freeview though
It depends on what you prefer to watch. Quite a few people I know have Sky and most say that it isn't worth the money unless you have the time to watch TV all day.
Sadly I'm not into home shopping, religious channels or continous coverage of Man United so Sky is out for me!