The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Since the advent of SKY television we have seen a gradual decrease in the quality of our terrestrial television. All of the latest and greatest shows make their debut appearance on Sky one, or Paramount or Fox, and I have to say I am fed up with it.
I realise Sky has lots of money to throw around at new shows, but this is no excuse. I am frequently outraged by the constant frequency of advert breaks, and although this is not the case on BBC, we are paying a pretty penny just to have this privilege.
What exactly do BBC channels do with our license money? They are supposed to use it to provide us with the best in aural and optical entertainment, but instead we are treated to garbage such as "The Flying Gardener" which is in a prime time slot!
Furthermore we are constantly bombarded with ageing repeats or "vintage" comedies, there is only so many times you can laugh at Mr Mainwaring calling Pike a "stupid boy" or indeed corporal Jones shouting "Don’t panic". The BBC also likes to drag ancient episodes of "Porridge" and last Monday the very first episode of "The Fresh Prince Of Belair" was used as a plug to fill a leaky whole in the schedule.
Moreover I now only watch the first few minutes of the Simpson’s to check if I recognise the sketch of the family approaching the living room, before quickly yelling "seen it" and changing the channel.
I am also becoming frustrated at the length of time we need to wait to see the next series of Friends on channel 4, indeed the situation is so bad now that I am already up to date on the next series courtesy of the press. And it does not help me any that E4; channel 4's digital channel is screening the series before its terrestrial counterpart even though it will already be repeating what has been previously screened on Sky one.
You are all probably thinking, "Well why doesn't he just get Sky?" Well I will tell you, my mum and dad think it is too expensive for what it is I.E just more TV channels. And I am too young (only 16) to be able to sign the contract to pay for it myself, and I don't have a job so I couldn’t afford it either.
It is all very well to use availability of money as a scapegoat for a poorer service but the revenue the channels get through advertising is not being spent properly, it should go towards improving the service and not to line the deep pockets of the fat cats.
I must concede however that there have been a few shows, which were pleasing to see, "Walking With Dinosaurs" was a humbling insight into the life and times of the old inhabitants of earth. And "Space" with Sam Neil was a fascinating look into the deeper regions of our galaxy, however it must be noted that shows as epic as these have been few and far between
As I my inane ramblings draw to a close I would like to point out a home truths to the terrestrial TV channels, perhaps you should first revise your business plan, and then use the money you have more wisely. For a plan which has "Dissatisfaction guaranteed" is hardly an exemplary service.
I realise Sky has lots of money to throw around at new shows, but this is no excuse. I am frequently outraged by the constant frequency of advert breaks, and although this is not the case on BBC, we are paying a pretty penny just to have this privilege.
What exactly do BBC channels do with our license money? They are supposed to use it to provide us with the best in aural and optical entertainment, but instead we are treated to garbage such as "The Flying Gardener" which is in a prime time slot!
Furthermore we are constantly bombarded with ageing repeats or "vintage" comedies, there is only so many times you can laugh at Mr Mainwaring calling Pike a "stupid boy" or indeed corporal Jones shouting "Don’t panic". The BBC also likes to drag ancient episodes of "Porridge" and last Monday the very first episode of "The Fresh Prince Of Belair" was used as a plug to fill a leaky whole in the schedule.
Moreover I now only watch the first few minutes of the Simpson’s to check if I recognise the sketch of the family approaching the living room, before quickly yelling "seen it" and changing the channel.
I am also becoming frustrated at the length of time we need to wait to see the next series of Friends on channel 4, indeed the situation is so bad now that I am already up to date on the next series courtesy of the press. And it does not help me any that E4; channel 4's digital channel is screening the series before its terrestrial counterpart even though it will already be repeating what has been previously screened on Sky one.
You are all probably thinking, "Well why doesn't he just get Sky?" Well I will tell you, my mum and dad think it is too expensive for what it is I.E just more TV channels. And I am too young (only 16) to be able to sign the contract to pay for it myself, and I don't have a job so I couldn’t afford it either.
It is all very well to use availability of money as a scapegoat for a poorer service but the revenue the channels get through advertising is not being spent properly, it should go towards improving the service and not to line the deep pockets of the fat cats.
I must concede however that there have been a few shows, which were pleasing to see, "Walking With Dinosaurs" was a humbling insight into the life and times of the old inhabitants of earth. And "Space" with Sam Neil was a fascinating look into the deeper regions of our galaxy, however it must be noted that shows as epic as these have been few and far between
As I my inane ramblings draw to a close I would like to point out a home truths to the terrestrial TV channels, perhaps you should first revise your business plan, and then use the money you have more wisely. For a plan which has "Dissatisfaction guaranteed" is hardly an exemplary service.
Sibs wrote:
> you think you've got it bad???
Here on the Isle of Wight we can't even get
> channel 5 unless you have satellite!!! We're still stuck with four channels, at
> least you get 5! And there are some good TV shows. admittedly, not many, but
> some. I honestly can't be bothered with TV anymore. I just switch it on, flick
> through the channels, then switch it off again, unless something really catches
> my eye. There are vey few programmes I regularly watch, although I do get stuck
> watching Eastenders most tea times (hey, my Mum's a fan, and she insists we
> watch it while settling down to a wholesome meal!), but that aside I don't think
> there are many programmes I will make sure I don't miss. And the late night TV
> this half-term has been very poor! Not a hilarious horror B-movie in sight!
> Shocking!
That is quite a bum deal, but at least you are spared of "Family Affairs".
> you think you've got it bad???
Here on the Isle of Wight we can't even get
> channel 5 unless you have satellite!!! We're still stuck with four channels, at
> least you get 5! And there are some good TV shows. admittedly, not many, but
> some. I honestly can't be bothered with TV anymore. I just switch it on, flick
> through the channels, then switch it off again, unless something really catches
> my eye. There are vey few programmes I regularly watch, although I do get stuck
> watching Eastenders most tea times (hey, my Mum's a fan, and she insists we
> watch it while settling down to a wholesome meal!), but that aside I don't think
> there are many programmes I will make sure I don't miss. And the late night TV
> this half-term has been very poor! Not a hilarious horror B-movie in sight!
> Shocking!
That is quite a bum deal, but at least you are spared of "Family Affairs".
Stryke wrote:
Really -
> I bet you watch it for the porn. ;-)
'Erotic Thriller' I think you'll find.
Really -
> I bet you watch it for the porn. ;-)
'Erotic Thriller' I think you'll find.
you think you've got it bad???
Here on the Isle of Wight we can't even get channel 5 unless you have satellite!!! We're still stuck with four channels, at least you get 5! And there are some good TV shows. admittedly, not many, but some. I honestly can't be bothered with TV anymore. I just switch it on, flick through the channels, then switch it off again, unless something really catches my eye. There are vey few programmes I regularly watch, although I do get stuck watching Eastenders most tea times (hey, my Mum's a fan, and she insists we watch it while settling down to a wholesome meal!), but that aside I don't think there are many programmes I will make sure I don't miss. And the late night TV this half-term has been very poor! Not a hilarious horror B-movie in sight! Shocking!
Here on the Isle of Wight we can't even get channel 5 unless you have satellite!!! We're still stuck with four channels, at least you get 5! And there are some good TV shows. admittedly, not many, but some. I honestly can't be bothered with TV anymore. I just switch it on, flick through the channels, then switch it off again, unless something really catches my eye. There are vey few programmes I regularly watch, although I do get stuck watching Eastenders most tea times (hey, my Mum's a fan, and she insists we watch it while settling down to a wholesome meal!), but that aside I don't think there are many programmes I will make sure I don't miss. And the late night TV this half-term has been very poor! Not a hilarious horror B-movie in sight! Shocking!
Bonus wrote:
> To be fair, channel 5 rocks. American Football, Football, NHL, Supercross, and
> many, many more sports programmes.
As for the BBC, up here we get quality
> like Only and Excuse and Chewin' the Fat. Not to mention They Think It's All
> Over.
The only thing satelite TV or cable is good for is dedicated sports,
> music and cartoon channels.......
To be honest i think channel 5 was a disappointment, i don't particularly like the NFL, NHL and the supercross, they promise hit films but they arent really that great, especially some of their movie Seasons, the Nick cage was was good, but the Steven Segal one has been a mixed bag.
I agree with what you say there about the comedy shows, but sometimes Chewin' The Fat is hit and miss, with some sketches verging on the poverty line. Only an Excuse is usually essential viewing, but again we are only treated to such delights once a week.
> To be fair, channel 5 rocks. American Football, Football, NHL, Supercross, and
> many, many more sports programmes.
As for the BBC, up here we get quality
> like Only and Excuse and Chewin' the Fat. Not to mention They Think It's All
> Over.
The only thing satelite TV or cable is good for is dedicated sports,
> music and cartoon channels.......
To be honest i think channel 5 was a disappointment, i don't particularly like the NFL, NHL and the supercross, they promise hit films but they arent really that great, especially some of their movie Seasons, the Nick cage was was good, but the Steven Segal one has been a mixed bag.
I agree with what you say there about the comedy shows, but sometimes Chewin' The Fat is hit and miss, with some sketches verging on the poverty line. Only an Excuse is usually essential viewing, but again we are only treated to such delights once a week.
Bonus wrote:
> To be fair, channel 5 rocks. American Football, Football, NHL, Supercross, and
> many, many more sports programmes.
--
Really - I bet you watch it for the porn. ;-)
> To be fair, channel 5 rocks. American Football, Football, NHL, Supercross, and
> many, many more sports programmes.
--
Really - I bet you watch it for the porn. ;-)
To be fair, channel 5 rocks. American Football, Football, NHL, Supercross, and many, many more sports programmes.
As for the BBC, up here we get quality like Only and Excuse and Chewin' the Fat. Not to mention They Think It's All Over.
The only thing satelite TV or cable is good for is dedicated sports, music and cartoon channels.......
As for the BBC, up here we get quality like Only and Excuse and Chewin' the Fat. Not to mention They Think It's All Over.
The only thing satelite TV or cable is good for is dedicated sports, music and cartoon channels.......
Since the advent of SKY television we have seen a gradual decrease in the quality of our terrestrial television. All of the latest and greatest shows make their debut appearance on Sky one, or Paramount or Fox, and I have to say I am fed up with it.
I realise Sky has lots of money to throw around at new shows, but this is no excuse. I am frequently outraged by the constant frequency of advert breaks, and although this is not the case on BBC, we are paying a pretty penny just to have this privilege.
What exactly do BBC channels do with our license money? They are supposed to use it to provide us with the best in aural and optical entertainment, but instead we are treated to garbage such as "The Flying Gardener" which is in a prime time slot!
Furthermore we are constantly bombarded with ageing repeats or "vintage" comedies, there is only so many times you can laugh at Mr Mainwaring calling Pike a "stupid boy" or indeed corporal Jones shouting "Don’t panic". The BBC also likes to drag ancient episodes of "Porridge" and last Monday the very first episode of "The Fresh Prince Of Belair" was used as a plug to fill a leaky whole in the schedule.
Moreover I now only watch the first few minutes of the Simpson’s to check if I recognise the sketch of the family approaching the living room, before quickly yelling "seen it" and changing the channel.
I am also becoming frustrated at the length of time we need to wait to see the next series of Friends on channel 4, indeed the situation is so bad now that I am already up to date on the next series courtesy of the press. And it does not help me any that E4; channel 4's digital channel is screening the series before its terrestrial counterpart even though it will already be repeating what has been previously screened on Sky one.
You are all probably thinking, "Well why doesn't he just get Sky?" Well I will tell you, my mum and dad think it is too expensive for what it is I.E just more TV channels. And I am too young (only 16) to be able to sign the contract to pay for it myself, and I don't have a job so I couldn’t afford it either.
It is all very well to use availability of money as a scapegoat for a poorer service but the revenue the channels get through advertising is not being spent properly, it should go towards improving the service and not to line the deep pockets of the fat cats.
I must concede however that there have been a few shows, which were pleasing to see, "Walking With Dinosaurs" was a humbling insight into the life and times of the old inhabitants of earth. And "Space" with Sam Neil was a fascinating look into the deeper regions of our galaxy, however it must be noted that shows as epic as these have been few and far between
As I my inane ramblings draw to a close I would like to point out a home truths to the terrestrial TV channels, perhaps you should first revise your business plan, and then use the money you have more wisely. For a plan which has "Dissatisfaction guaranteed" is hardly an exemplary service.
I realise Sky has lots of money to throw around at new shows, but this is no excuse. I am frequently outraged by the constant frequency of advert breaks, and although this is not the case on BBC, we are paying a pretty penny just to have this privilege.
What exactly do BBC channels do with our license money? They are supposed to use it to provide us with the best in aural and optical entertainment, but instead we are treated to garbage such as "The Flying Gardener" which is in a prime time slot!
Furthermore we are constantly bombarded with ageing repeats or "vintage" comedies, there is only so many times you can laugh at Mr Mainwaring calling Pike a "stupid boy" or indeed corporal Jones shouting "Don’t panic". The BBC also likes to drag ancient episodes of "Porridge" and last Monday the very first episode of "The Fresh Prince Of Belair" was used as a plug to fill a leaky whole in the schedule.
Moreover I now only watch the first few minutes of the Simpson’s to check if I recognise the sketch of the family approaching the living room, before quickly yelling "seen it" and changing the channel.
I am also becoming frustrated at the length of time we need to wait to see the next series of Friends on channel 4, indeed the situation is so bad now that I am already up to date on the next series courtesy of the press. And it does not help me any that E4; channel 4's digital channel is screening the series before its terrestrial counterpart even though it will already be repeating what has been previously screened on Sky one.
You are all probably thinking, "Well why doesn't he just get Sky?" Well I will tell you, my mum and dad think it is too expensive for what it is I.E just more TV channels. And I am too young (only 16) to be able to sign the contract to pay for it myself, and I don't have a job so I couldn’t afford it either.
It is all very well to use availability of money as a scapegoat for a poorer service but the revenue the channels get through advertising is not being spent properly, it should go towards improving the service and not to line the deep pockets of the fat cats.
I must concede however that there have been a few shows, which were pleasing to see, "Walking With Dinosaurs" was a humbling insight into the life and times of the old inhabitants of earth. And "Space" with Sam Neil was a fascinating look into the deeper regions of our galaxy, however it must be noted that shows as epic as these have been few and far between
As I my inane ramblings draw to a close I would like to point out a home truths to the terrestrial TV channels, perhaps you should first revise your business plan, and then use the money you have more wisely. For a plan which has "Dissatisfaction guaranteed" is hardly an exemplary service.