2006-09-17 22:10:13 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
The only thing they've done is bring in BBC hd,which most of the time shows BBC hd preview or Jools Holland,this is the crap we keep paying our tv licence for.
2006-09-17 22:31:11 · answer #1 · answered by Dave 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A) This question is nonsense - what do you mean "keep up"?
B) Most of the people who answered this are ignorant of how the BBC works.
Sky is nothing more than a company which buys shows from everyone else and then transmits them - a broker, if you like. The BBC is a huge and diverse corporation (note: NOT company) which apart from broadcasting some decent, well-made stuff (not all of it, I agree, some is just dreadful), actually produces and exports a lot of stuff. It's more than just TV and RAdio - go do some research.
We could scrap the licence fee, but would end up with just imported shows interupted every 10 mins with 15 mins of adverts, and would lose the BBC.
My response to this question is - has the BBC dropped it's standards to meet the demand of the ever more stupid audience to keep up with Sky?
2006-09-18 09:32:31 · answer #2 · answered by BushRaider69 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Given that the BBC has only one source of income from the licence fee, whereas Sky have many sources of income including subscriptions, installations and advertising as well as being a major multinational corporation. Given that the BBC has a tight remit as to what it can show and that it must appeal to everyone (Lets face it we are all a bunch of whingers) from old to young whereas Sky can do what they like and buy in whatever content they want. Given the above I don't see how the BBC could possibly be compared to Sky, they couldn't hope to compete.
2006-09-18 05:25:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing sensible, they spend too much on crap comedy that is offensive and picks up on stereotypes.
They've got too many different news services on at the same time, I understand the need for local news, but National News bulletins should be the same on all TV and Radio channels.
News 24 is a waste of space and should be abolished.
Sky News is always going to be better than the BBC.
2006-09-18 05:13:09 · answer #4 · answered by thebigtombs 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They produce and show original programmes that Sky re-transmits months or years later.
Sky produces very little original TV except for sports coverage.
Sky basically exists to make money out of us by selling advertising and by expensive pay to view contracts.The question should be "What has Sky done for us?"
2006-09-18 05:27:04 · answer #5 · answered by anthony e 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I googled bbc sky competition and recieved some responses. One which seems relevant is listed below
2006-09-18 05:27:47 · answer #6 · answered by Nick 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess it's added a bit more specialist programming. Like sign time....but a terrestrial channel would never really keep up with sky. But yeah, sky's alot more about specialist programming so that's what i'd go with
2006-09-18 05:23:48 · answer #7 · answered by smugsy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing that im aware of, added a few more channels of repetes a kids channel to keep the little buggers out of the way but thats it!
2006-09-18 05:15:18 · answer #8 · answered by carla s 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nothing!!!!! how frustrating is it that we pay for sky through choice we choose the channels we would like and pay for those chosen, oh not the beeb we have to pay for 2 channels that we probably dont want and whether we watch them or not they screw us for £136. It is another day in rip off britain......
2006-09-18 05:45:48 · answer #9 · answered by princess tinkle UK 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Made Doctor Who.
That still doesn't justify the licence fee.
2006-09-18 14:10:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋