View Full Version : tv licence guess what ?
the tv licence is going up by £5 the colour licence will now cost £121 per year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3261007.stm
now im strongly against a tv licence at all the BBC create hardly any programming worth watching the bbc can adequatly fund itself through advertising and selling its books videos dvd's as well as licencing its productions to other countries
the tv licence is going up by £5 the colour licence will now cost £121 per year
Ah well whats another fiver? :rolleyes:
downquark1
11-11-2003, 21:17
the tv licence is going up by £5 the colour licence will now cost £121 per year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3261007.stm
now im strongly against a tv licence at all the BBC create hardly any programming worth watching the bbc can adequatly fund itself through advertising and selling its books videos dvd's as well as licencing its productions to other countries
In america they have a break every 5 min, you do not want this here The bbc is the last stand against complete capitallistic TV.
Seriously on an episode of the simpsons you have:
1) the opening credits
2) adverts
3) bit of story
4) adverts
5) more bit of story
6) adverts
7) closing credits
It was terrible :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry: They even did this with the films :grind:
In america they have a break every 5 min, you do not want this here The bbc is the last stand against complete capitallistic TV.
Seriously on an episode of the simpsons you have:
1) the opening credits
2) adverts
3) bit of story
4) adverts
5) more bit of story
6) adverts
7) closing credits
It was terrible :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry: They even did this with the films :grind:
i think your going a little too overboard there the BBC get all the money they make more money by using the alternative methods i previously mentioned
they launch channels full of repeats or 'timeshifted' programs
:rolleyes:
Well they do pay their news presenters £400,00 0 a year, they've got to get that somehow...
downquark1
11-11-2003, 21:23
i think your going a little too overboard there the BBC get all the money they make more money by using the alternative methods i previously mentioned
they launch channels full of repeats or 'timeshifted' programs
:rolleyes:
The experience of American TV has caused me to want to defend the BBC with my life. the digital channels are merely to competely technologically. Beside some people like repeats if they have busy scheduels.
The experience of American TV has caused me to want to defend the BBC with my life. the digital channels are merely to competely technologically. Beside some people like repeats if they have busy scheduels.
yes but some of there digital satellite channels are set up for repeats soley catering to them i dont mind uk gold because it variates its schedule
but i doubt they could turn in to the american style of advertising
Well they do pay their news presenters £400,00 0 a year, they've got to get that somehow...
yes there overpayed presenters who look medicore at best except a few
downquark1
11-11-2003, 21:31
now im strongly against a tv licence at all the BBC create hardly any programming worth watching the bbc can adequatly fund itself through advertising and selling its books videos dvd's as well as licencing its productions to other countries
Yes the bbc can get funds this way - but so does every other station. The TV license is the only think allowing the bbc to compete without introducing advertisements. Which in my opinion is not worth it. When was the last time the cost was raised? - this may be due to inflation.
yes there overpayed presenters who look medicore at best except a few Do I detect a hint of prejudice based on appearances?
When was the last time the cost was raised??
Last year to pay for the new BBC digital channels that no one watches :rolleyes:
Yes the bbc can get funds this way - but so does every other station. The TV license is the only think allowing the bbc to compete without introducing advertisements. Which in my opinion is not worth it. When was the last time the cost was raised? - this may be due to inflation.
the tv licence is clearly a huge advantage to the BBC in terms of finding finance but i still cant see any justification for a tv licence especially a yearly increase :rolleyes:
Do I detect a hint of prejudice based on appearances?
i meant presenting style the amount of effort they put in with contestants using the script you need to have the knack for presenting not look like an idiot in your presentation
Last year to pay for the new BBC digital channels that no one watches :rolleyes:
i bet they struggle to get 10,000 viewers on the new channels :LOL:
The BBC should concentrate on what (historically at least) it's good at, documentaries, dramas, family comedy.
It should not try and run itself like a commercial TV company.
K, do you not think that if the licence fee is scrapped the beeb will take on advertising and then the price of your purchases (whatever they may be) will go up to pay for it, swings and roundabouts mate, when you leave home and buy / rent a house, another fiver is nothing, believe me. :(
The BBC should concentrate on what (historically at least) it's good at, documentaries, dramas, family comedy.
It should not try and run itself like a commercial TV company.
It doesn't. A subsidiary runs UK TV as a joint venture with one of the former ITV franchises ... Thames, I think. BBC Worldwide sells the merchandise and the profits are skimmed off to augment the TV licence fee and help pay for 8 TV channels, 8 (?) national radio channels and a dozen or more local radio stations. There are no commercial breaks on any of these channels. If the BBC went to a subscription model, the inevitable result would be ads as well as a subscription, as there would be bound to be people who would opt out.
Some things, everyone should help to pay for whether they use them or not because they are part of the infrastructure of this country ... roads, railways, the BBC. We all rely on the BBC at one time or another and deep down we all know they are damn good at what they do. Every single event that's televised live on both BBC1 and ITV1 will be watched on the BBC by at least twice as many people as watch it on ITV.
And besides, without the BBC and its prolific output of original programming, where would all the satellite stations get their programming from? Sky creams the best of the American stuff, but even they scrape the barrel from time to time (anyone ever see any of Dead Like Me?)
And anyway, I disagree with the notion that the digital channels are a waste of money. I have enjoyed good, original material on both BBC3 and 4, and we watch 3 in our house almost as much as Sky One. As for the kids' channels ... well, Cbeebies is the only free-to-air tots channel and is the only one with almost entirely British-made programming, so it supports our son in learning, for example, British English rather than American (anyone else remember being confused by Sesame Street's insistence on saying 'zee' instead of 'zed'?) BBC digital would be worth it for Cbeebies if nothing else ... and so says our 14-month-old!
K, do you not think that if the licence fee is scrapped the beeb will take on advertising and then the price of your purchases (whatever they may be) will go up to pay for it, swings and roundabouts mate,when you leave home and buy / rent a house,
i dont think people mind a pound or two increase on the BBC's media that it distributes
another fiver is nothing, believe me. :(
i understand but you have to take a stance sometime why do they call it rip off britain :rolleyes:
The BBC should concentrate on what (historically at least) it's good at, documentaries, dramas, family comedy.
some of those are not too appealing but nonetheless the viewing figures show people do watch them so yes they should do that
It should not try and run itself like a commercial TV company.
correct it(the BBC) is just monopolising its position it knows it has an advantage via funding
i understand but you have to take a stance sometime why do they call it rip off britain :rolleyes:
Because they're the Sun, and think that sheep will believe them when they tell us that we pay over the odds for stuff :rolleyes:
The BBC is a British institution and we should just live with it. Its like saying we should knock down Big Ben.
I know they are/having a rough time at the moment with Andrew G and all but they are the ones I turn to for accurate digital news. :cool:
The BBC is a British institution and we should just live with it. Its like saying we should knock down Big Ben.
institution ?
why live with the licence i have explained how the BBC could reorganize itself and the bit about wasting millions on the tv stations no one will watch
i dont mean get rid of the BBC but i sure would not miss it
In america they have a break every 5 min, you do not want this here The bbc is the last stand against complete capitallistic TV.
Seriously on an episode of the simpsons you have:
1) the opening credits
2) adverts
3) bit of story
4) adverts
5) more bit of story
6) adverts
7) closing credits
It was terrible :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry: They even did this with the films :grind:True but why don't ITV do the same as the US networks then?
It doesn't. A subsidiary runs UK TV as a joint venture with one of the former ITV franchises ... Thames, I think. BBC Worldwide sells the merchandise and the profits are skimmed off to augment the TV licence fee and help pay for 8 TV channels, 8 (?) national radio channels and a dozen or more local radio stations. There are no commercial breaks on any of these channels. If the BBC went to a subscription model, the inevitable result would be ads as well as a subscription, as there would be bound to be people who would opt out.
Some things, everyone should help to pay for whether they use them or not because they are part of the infrastructure of this country ... roads, railways, the BBC. We all rely on the BBC at one time or another and deep down we all know they are damn good at what they do. Every single event that's televised live on both BBC1 and ITV1 will be watched on the BBC by at least twice as many people as watch it on ITV.
And besides, without the BBC and its prolific output of original programming, where would all the satellite stations get their programming from? Sky creams the best of the American stuff, but even they scrape the barrel from time to time (anyone ever see any of Dead Like Me?)
And anyway, I disagree with the notion that the digital channels are a waste of money. I have enjoyed good, original material on both BBC3 and 4, and we watch 3 in our house almost as much as Sky One. As for the kids' channels ... well, Cbeebies is the only free-to-air tots channel and is the only one with almost entirely British-made programming, so it supports our son in learning, for example, British English rather than American (anyone else remember being confused by Sesame Street's insistence on saying 'zee' instead of 'zed'?) BBC digital would be worth it for Cbeebies if nothing else ... and so says our 14-month-old!Cbeebies! Gets our seal of approval!:)
i dont mean get rid of the BBC but i sure would not miss it
I don't mean to offend K, but this is the mentality of this country now "I'm alright Jack"
I find it rather saddening.
:mis:
True but why don't ITV do the same as the US networks then?
The terms of ITV's licence to broadcast limits the amount of advertising per hour, AFAIK
it's odd! we pay for a tv licence so as not to have ads on the bbc.
however i pay to have ads on the rest of the dtv channels.this i really resent
personally i would pay NOT to have any ads what so ever.or at least only to have them at the end and between shows not every bl**dy five minutes.
incog. :)
Thinking about his again, I guess we pay for the privilege of having a telly, its not really an issue where the money goes to is it?
Did they finally ammend that clause in the TV licencing wherby anyone using a TFT TV or PC with TV card does not have to pay a liscence?
If they havent I know what I will be getting when I move out :D
In america they have a break every 5 min, you do not want this here The bbc is the last stand against complete capitallistic TV.
Seriously on an episode of the simpsons you have:
1) the opening credits
2) adverts
3) bit of story
4) adverts
5) more bit of story
6) adverts
7) closing credits
It was terrible They even did this with the films
Correct, but only if you watch major networks such as ABC, CBS, CBC, NBC, and so forth.
However, the Family channel has no advertisements. Neither does HBO, the movie network, Starz!, and the other 50 movie channels. If you watch the free TV, the stuff you can get by antenna, you have commercials. Otherwise, it is very decent.
And, I do prefer having some sort of break in programs, because I *always* want to get a snack, go to the washroom, and sometimes the commercials are enjoyable.
121 pounds though, that is like C$ 250. That gets me 40 channels of basic cable, and for another 50 pounds a year I can get another 20 specialty channels such as Discovery, TBS, Family, Sci Fi, Space, and so on.
timewarrior2001
12-11-2003, 09:21
The BBC signal should be scrambled, so those that dont want to pay extortion money can opt out and not receive BBC signals (including radio......who actually enjoys Radio one?).
KingPhoenix
12-11-2003, 09:25
the tv licence is going up by £5 the colour licence will now cost £121 per year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3261007.stm
now im strongly against a tv licence at all the BBC create hardly any programming worth watching the bbc can adequatly fund itself through advertising and selling its books videos dvd's as well as licencing its productions to other countries
Not meaning to sound funny or anything..... but do you actually pay a tv license??? :rolleyes:
Did they finally ammend that clause in the TV licencing wherby anyone using a TFT TV or PC with TV card does not have to pay a liscence?
If they havent I know what I will be getting when I move out :D
You'll need a TV licence for every UK property where UK broadcast television can be viewed or recorded. It doesn't matter how the signal gets there (satellite, cable or even streaming internet) and it doesn't matter what you view it on (CRT, TFT or VCR), you'll still need a licence.
There's loads of useful information - and evidence - on this (http://www.jifvik.org/tv/) FAQs page and another heated discussion (with more evidence) in this (http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70177) thread.
orangebird
12-11-2003, 09:36
Ah well whats another fiver? :rolleyes:
With respect dellwear, it could be the straw that breaks the camels back for a lot of people... :( I suppose it just depends on how many 'five pounds' you have spare....
What with car tax going up, NI contributions going up, interest rate rising etc, it's definitely a fiver that I could've done without spending.....
Make the TV Licence just a bloody TV licence and they wouldn't need to put the cost up. We should not have to pay £100 million a year just for their website and billions more for all their radio stations. Their a load of greedy b@stards
Stuart W
12-11-2003, 12:27
Some things, everyone should help to pay for whether they use them or not because they are part of the infrastructure of this country ... roads, railways, the BBC.
The BBC is a British institution and we should just live with it. Its like saying we should knock down Big Ben.
BBC is not part of UK infrastructure!
If the BBC were to suddenly stop, we could all still live our lives in much the same way, except those working for the BBC of course.
The roads are infrastructure, but we pay road tax for it. If I don't have a car, I don't pay road tax. As for the railway, correcdt me if I am wrong, but don't you need to purchase a ticket to use it?
As for Big Ben, I don't want to see it go, but if I had to pay over £100 a year to keep it, my opinion would soon change.
Big Ben is not worth £100PA to me. It's only a frikkin bell after all. It could be replaced.
I think the TV lisence is an out and out CON. I do watch BBC and I agree they do make some damn fine programmes, but I only watch BBC1 & BBC2. I don't listen to the radio (except sometimes internet radio, which is comercial) and I don't have digital TV.
I think the TV lisence is an out and out CON. I do watch BBC and I agree they do make some damn fine programmes, but I only watch BBC1 & BBC2. I don't listen to the radio (except sometimes internet radio, which is comercial) and I don't have digital TV.
Agreed and those fine good programs you call can still be made via adverts if their good.
Also adverts are not that bad either. We all have bladder's and like a drink, something to eat in-between program's
downquark1
12-11-2003, 13:05
I listen to radio 4. I think the bbc is an institution. They used their equipment to aid in WW2.
Enterian
12-11-2003, 13:14
It's just another stealth tax, this government loves 'em. Next they'll be introducing compulsory ID cards and making us pay for them! :rolleyes:
.......oh damn, they seem to have already thought of that! :mis:
It's just another stealth tax, this government loves 'em.
Yer right, 'cos it was Tony Blair that had the idea of creating a national broadcaster!
Sometimes people try to turn everything into a political issue :rolleyes:
:Peace:
I like the BBC, I use the service, I think it is well worth the money.
Thinking about his again, I guess we pay for the privilege of having a telly,
and you have to ask yourself why does beurocracy state that you pay for a tv then have a licence for it :rolleyes:
its not really an issue where the money goes to is it?
yes because if its going to one company it is unfair on the other channels the constant yearly increase to the BBC is shockingly high the money spent is wasted on presenters and in house productions but where is the 'quality' entertainment ?
I don't mean to offend K, but this is the mentality of this country now "I'm alright Jack"
I find it rather saddening.
:mis:
well you have misunderstood my point i shall go no further on that
The BBC signal should be scrambled, so those that dont want to pay extortion money can opt out and not receive BBC signals (including radio......who actually enjoys Radio one?).
now there is a sensible idea ofcourse its not economically viable is what they will say :rolleyes:
Not meaning to sound funny or anything..... but do you actually pay a tv license??? :rolleyes:
that is funny because yes we do as in my family thats not relavant what is that we pay it if you dont and get caught out you wil be penalised
The experience of American TV has caused me to want to defend the BBC with my life. the digital channels are merely to competely technologically. Beside some people like repeats if they have busy scheduels.
your not kdding they manage to make a 45min episode of star trek last 1 1/2 hours
The licence fee is well worth it.
Ah the foolishness and ignorance of the masses.
A Star Trek episode is 40 minutes long, and it is stretched to fit 1 hour. Not 1 1/2 hours.
Lord Nikon
19-11-2003, 16:45
I have a valid idea.
How about NTL offering a "License included" package whereby they supply you a TV license for a nominal fee per month. Similar to the TVL DD scheme,
my house doesn't posess a TV antenna, my only TV reception is via NTL cable, why not have the option to tag £10 / month onto the ntl bill and pay your license that way, NTL send you a license annually and everyone is happier.
though thats just a way to remember to buy one and is slightly off topic.
Personally I feel that the TV license is bull, it should not exist.
Take a look at a typical day's BBC 1 viewing, then look also at BBC2, remember, this is all the broadcast BBC people can view without a digital platform, is it really worth the money? I think not. (not counting radio as I said VIEW)
Let the BBC issue a scrambled signal people have to pay £10 / month to view, do it on the freeview style system, but also include the other digital channels, make a radio license viable for people who want one at say £10 / year. I for one wouldn't get a BBC TV pack. but instead of FORCING everyone who OWNS equipment capable of receiving a TV signal to pay, make it so that people who WANT to watch BBC pay.
£5 a year, that's approx. 1.4 pence a day, you tightwads! Prices increase on just about everything, every year, live with it! (And why am I not surprised that Kronas is being all indignant about it when he doesn't actually pay for one .. sad)
I have a valid idea.
How about NTL offering a "License included" package whereby they supply you a TV license for a nominal fee per month. Similar to the TVL DD scheme,
my house doesn't posess a TV antenna, my only TV reception is via NTL cable, why not have the option to tag £10 / month onto the ntl bill and pay your license that way, NTL send you a license annually and everyone is happier.
though thats just a way to remember to buy one and is slightly off topic.
Personally I feel that the TV license is bull, it should not exist.
Take a look at a typical day's BBC 1 viewing, then look also at BBC2, remember, this is all the broadcast BBC people can view without a digital platform, is it really worth the money? I think not. (not counting radio as I said VIEW)
Let the BBC issue a scrambled signal people have to pay £10 / month to view, do it on the freeview style system, but also include the other digital channels, make a radio license viable for people who want one at say £10 / year. I for one wouldn't get a BBC TV pack. but instead of FORCING everyone who OWNS equipment capable of receiving a TV signal to pay, make it so that people who WANT to watch BBC pay.
I think you're misunderstanding what the TV licence is for. It's not a fee for just another pack of TV channels, it's effectively a tax that is designed to support a Government policy. That policy essentially says, 'we believe there should be a broadcasting service in the UK whose programming decisions are not ultimately dictated by advertising revenues.' This arrangement allows the BBC to risk airtime on new people and ideas, as well as giving it a guaranteed pot of cash with which to make quality TV and radio programming. A huge amount of BBC output ends up as repeats on subscription-based TV channels. These channels would not have nearly enough money to make these programmes themselves if the flow of new material from the BBC dried up (which it would, if the BBC went subscription-only).
There's no need for a TV LICENCE in this day and age and what really ****'s me off is the BBC brigade being selfish insisting everyone should pay for it because we wont it
Well I say F#ckem
... but instead of FORCING everyone who OWNS equipment capable of receiving a TV signal to pay, make it so that people who WANT to watch BBC pay.
Not quite true, I'm afraid - see, for example, this (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/altisuk/temp/tvl01.jpg) letter.
You only need a licence if you actually watch or record any television service that is broadcast from the UK.
SMHarman
19-11-2003, 17:28
I have a valid idea.
<snip>
make a radio license viable for people who want one at say £10 / year. I for one wouldn't get a BBC TV pack. but instead of FORCING everyone who OWNS equipment capable of receiving a TV signal to pay, make it so that people who WANT to watch BBC pay.
Hmmm - that would be every car owner in the country.
How much would it cost to issue each of these £10 licences? How much would end up in the pockets of the BBC once the bank charges, ee costs, database costs, post office fees, printing costs had been taken out £4?
Considering freeview boxes are now down to the price of a night out or a couple of takeaways (£40) I thing DTV take up will increase.
The BBC output has other benefits also. CBeebies / Childrens BBC means you can let you children watch cartoons without having adverts forced down their throats, similar to Disney channels at £5 a month - try watching milkshake (five) on a morning and the adverts for crap presents are astounding.
SMHarman
19-11-2003, 17:32
Ah the foolishness and ignorance of the masses.
A Star Trek episode is 40 minutes long, and it is stretched to fit 1 hour. Not 1 1/2 hours.
The adverts that amaze me in the states are the post credits and pre end teaser ones. Friends is a great example of a show where there is a little 30 second scene before the credits at the start and after the end credits. The US viewer is subjected to 30s of adverts (probably at great cost to the advertiser) before they can see this. Its adverts you are effectively forced to watch.
:notopic: but does anyone else find the "Blossom Hill" sponsorship of Will and Grace REALLY LOUD?
the BBC brigade being selfish insisting everyone should pay for it because we wont it
Its the law D, get over it.
Oh, and its want! :p
downquark1
19-11-2003, 17:40
The adverts that amaze me in the states are the post credits and pre end teaser ones. Friends is a great example of a show where there is a little 30 second scene before the credits at the start and after the end credits. The US viewer is subjected to 30s of adverts (probably at great cost to the advertiser) before they can see this. Its adverts you are effectively forced to watch.
I completely agree :)
Its the law D, get over it.
Oh, and its want! :p
A Law that says yo must have a licence for your television set(The year is 2003). Yep were a laughing stock
A Law that says yo must have a licence for your television set(The year is 2003). Yep were a laughing stock
WTF, were the envy of the world over our TV out put what are you on about?
The BBC output has other benefits also. CBeebies / Childrens BBC means you can let you children watch cartoons without having adverts forced down their throats, similar to Disney channels at £5 a month - try watching milkshake (five) on a morning and the adverts for crap presents are astounding.
Too right ... Cbeebies is a trusty babysitter in our house for when Mrs Towny has to get washing on or do some other task that means she can't keep an eye on his nibs for five minutes. He's prolly a little too young to take adverts in just now (14 months) but it wouldn't be long ... as it is, he need never see an ad at all.
Plus, there's loads of Teletubbies on Cbeebies and he loves Po. :D
Too right ... Cbeebies is a trusty babysitter in our house for when Mrs Towny has to get washing on or do some other task that means she can't keep an eye on his nibs for five minutes. He's prolly a little too young to take adverts in just now (14 months) but it wouldn't be long ... as it is, he need never see an ad at all.
Don't worry, before long he will be saying strange things like: 'Daddy, did you know that if you are a homeowner you could be eligable for a cash lump sum.....':eek: (and he was only 3 at the time)
Don't worry, before long he will be saying strange things like: 'Daddy, did you know that if you are a homeowner you could be eligable for a cash lump sum.....':eek: (and he was only 3 at the time)
:disturbd:
Or how about, 'Daddy, have you been injured in an accident that wasn't your fault?'
I can't wait. ;)
WTF, were the envy of the world over our TV out put what are you on about?
Really? Since when?
Don't you remember National Lampoon's European Vacation where they mocked the fact we only had 4 channels, all of which were showing crap.
Its adverts you are effectively forced to watch.
See that little red button on your TV remote that says power? :D
Really? Since when?
Don't you remember National Lampoon's European Vacation where they mocked the fact we only had 4 channels, all of which were showing crap.
See that little red button on your TV remote that says power? :D
IIRC it was 'cheese on four channels and no MTV!'
Really? Since when?
Don't you remember National Lampoon's European Vacation where they mocked the fact we only had 4 channels, all of which were showing crap.
Probably all US imports or they were watching on a Saturday night!
:angel:
..........and no MTV!'
:LOL: How could they mock us if they actually watch that sh it!! :eek: :spin: :rolleyes:
Really? Since when?
Don't you remember National Lampoon's European Vacation where they mocked the fact we only had 4 channels, all of which were showing crap.
Yep its only the beeb fan's that really believe all the hype about the bbc. There like brain dead zombie's. I think the tv in this country could get better if the licence was scrapped.
There like brain dead zombie's. I think the tv in this country could get better if the licence was scrapped.
It's "They're" not "There" .. and you have the cheek to call other people 'brain dead'
Yep its only the beeb fan's that really believe all the hype about the bbc. There like brain dead zombie's. I think the tv in this country could get better if the licence was scrapped.
I've tried, but I just can't think of any possible scenario which would lead to an overall increase in the quality of TV programming in this country for the simple reason of the licence fee being scrapped. So, please, could you explain how?
I've tried, but I just can't think of any possible scenario which would lead to an overall increase in the quality of TV programming in this country for the simple reason of the licence fee being scrapped. So, please, could you explain how?
House holds having more money freed up to spend on channels/packs they want to watch and not what the beeb want you to watch. Channels would be fighting to attract that extra revenue and you know what. It would be things which attract viewers. Not some of the ****e the beeb make/show which attract a few thousands viewers NUFF SAID
House holds having more money freed up to spend on channels/packs they want to watch and not what the beeb want you to watch. Channels would be fighting to attract that extra revenue and you know what. It would be things which attract viewers. Not some of the ****e the beeb make/show which attract a few thousands viewers NUFF SAID
Well, no, I don't think it's nuff said at all. I do not think it's guaranteed that if everyone suddenly had £121 to spend that they would put it all into their TV pack purchases, so a chunk of money would immediately be lost to the TV programme-making industry.
Of all the digital channels, only Sky One makes a significant effort at original UK programming and what's the result? Dream Team, Is Harry on the Boat, Brainiac and Kirsty's Home Videos.
Grrrrrreat.
Now these programmes have their place, (according to the Daily Mirror, even the Queen's a fan of Kirsty Gallagher :rofl: ) but are they a substitute for quality BBC drama like Waking the Dead or comedy like Have I got News for You or They Think it's All Over? And where in the schedule might there be room for quality factual programming like Watchdog and Panorama?
I do not believe that the extra cash that would make it into the system would have any significant impact on the ability of channels like Sky to make good TV. And most of the rest of the digital channels don't bother to make original programming at all, preferring to show re-runs of the very shows the BBC would no longer be able to make without the licence fee.
I think you recognise this, or else you wouldn't have gone and bought a Freeview box, which is largely free of re-run-only channels like Granada Plus and UK Gold. And remember D, the reason Sky has invested in Freeview is that they realise there are a large number of households that will never go for pay-TV of any kind. Freeview boxes don't have a subscriber card in them so you can't move digital terrestrial to a subscription model. People wouldn't pay for it anyway. And what is left on Freeview if the 8 BBC channels go?
Now these programmes have their place, (according to the Daily Mirror, even the Queen's a fan of Kirsty Gallagher :rofl: ) but are they a substitute for quality BBC drama like Waking the Dead or comedy like Have I got News for You or They Think it's All Over? And where in the schedule might there be room for quality factual programming like Watchdog and Panorama?
You still don't get it do you. If the licence fee is scrapped then I can't honestly see BBC1 closing down. It will do just as well in the private sector. Some of their radio stations will be sold and do well too no doubt but others will no doubt disappear and good riddance.
I'm not really that bothered. Its not like the TV Licence is in the same class as our tax's
Not some of the ****e the beeb make/show which attract a few thousands viewers NUFF SAID
Some of the '****e' as you put it for example, Eastenders, attract a lot of viewers, I think 12.1 million is a little bit of an advance over your stupid estimate.
You still don't get it do you. If the licence fee is scrapped then I can't honestly see BBC1 closing down. It will do just as well in the private sector. Some of their radio stations will be sold and do well too no doubt but others will no doubt disappear and good riddance.
I'm not really that bothered. Its not like the TV Licence is in the same class as our tax's
I get it alright ... yes, BBC1 will still be there, but commercial priorities will be driving it instead of issues of quality. It just won't be the same.
As for their local radio, well the sooner we see the back of the useless waste of space that is BBC Three Counties Radio (for Beds, Herts and Bucks, but mostly Luton) the better. You will get no argument from me there. Even BBC LDN (whatever that's supposed to mean) is right up itelf and considers itself to be some kind of appendage of national TV/Radio instead of attempting to get to grips with local concerns.
Some of the '****e' as you put it for example, Eastenders, attract a lot of viewers, I think 12.1 million is a little bit of an advance over your stupid estimate.
Er try switching braincell on before replying M8
I'm talking about allot of the crap shown on BBC2. Check out the viewing figures:2up:
Er try switching braincell on before replying M8
I'm talking about allot of the crap shown on BBC2. Check out the viewing figures:2up:OK, here they are.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/trendreports.cfm?report=share
According to this graph, BBC2 out-does both C4 and C5.
Also, all digital channels taken together can't out-do either BBC1 or ITV1. This graph shows BBC1 as the most popular general entertainment channel, and BBC2 as the most popular 'minority' channel.
EDIT:
This page:
http://www.barb.co.uk/TVFACTS.cfm?fullstory=true&newsid=11&flag=tvfacts
shows how the arrival of C4, C5, satellite and cable has dented BBC1 and ITV's viewing share over the last 20 years, although ITV has clearly been much harder hit than BBC1.
It also shows that BBC2's audience share is virtually unchanged - 12% in 1981, 11.4% today. Given that channels that didn't exist 20 years ago now have 38% of the share between them, you could say BBC2 is relatively more popular than it has ever been. :)
Er try switching braincell on before replying M8
I'm talking about allot of the crap shown on BBC2. Check out the viewing figures:2up:
Maybe you should read towny's post :) perhaps switching YOURS on first.
Really? Since when?
Don't you remember National Lampoon's European Vacation where they mocked the fact we only had 4 channels, all of which were showing crap.
Instead if 100+ channels all showing crap.
Instead if 100+ channels all showing crap.
They have choice though dont they. They wouldn't put up with a wacked out of date goverment telling them to pay for a tv licence.
Most of the programs I like are US based and movie's too so their doing something right
I'm talking about allot of the crap shown on BBC2. Check out the viewing figures:2up:
D, just because the viewing figures are low dosen't mean that its not a quality, valued program. You may not listen to Radio 3 but to some it is well worth the licence fee in itself.
This is the sort of mentality that has brought ITV to its knees, and created a Saturday night schedule that is nothing more then an extended pop contest. VIEWING FIGURES, VIEWING FIGURES, the management shout, but wheres the quality, its just cheap telly made to keep up the advertising figures, and thats all that will happen to the beeb if you scrap the licence fee.
You need to get over your need for everything to be just how you want it D and appreciate that others will want to watch/vote/talk about different things to you, thats life and what makes our lives such a rich tapestry. Life isn't jsut about you.
Like someone above said, if you don;t like it switch over, there are hundreds of channels to watch, I'm sure something you like will be on one of them, try Bravo! :rolleyes:
try Bravo! :rolleyes:
Or Live TV :naughty:
Like someone above said, if you don;t like it switch over, there are hundreds of channels to watch, I'm sure something you like will be on one of them, try Bravo! :rolleyes:
I dont watch the crap and therefore shouldn't have to pay for other people to watch it either thanks :2up:
I dont watch the crap and therefore shouldn't have to pay for other people to watch it either thanks :2up:
And this is why this country is going to the dogs, I'm alright Jack!
I dont watch the crap and therefore shouldn't have to pay for other people to watch it either thanks :2up:
Right, and you don't use the street lights in the street on the other side of town, so you shouldn't have to pay for them.
You don't use the facilities at your local old people's home, or get meals on wheels, or have any benefit out of cleaners mopping the floor at county hall, so you shouldn't have to pay for any of that either.
And what about the railways? You don't use the commuter lines into London so why should your taxes subsidise that either?
Or, a better example, the ferries linking the Hebrides to the mainland ... why should your tax pounds pay for islanders to maintain their lifestyle? No, of course not, they should all pay full fares, or move to the mainland if they don't like it.
We live in a society, Defiant. People who live in a society are supposed to support each other. That's why we pay taxes, duties and licence fees. The alternative is a selfish anarchy.
Given that channels that didn't exist 20 years ago now have 38% of the share between them, you could say BBC2 is relatively more popular than it has ever been. :)
Or you could say that decent channels aren't available terrestially and that paying money for them overtop of the license fee means ppl can't afford the extra cable channels, thus they are stuck in a 4 or, if they can properly receive channel 5, 5 channel choice. So naturally BBC2 wins and, not having advertisments helps? That or, since the channel is already paid for in a sense, ppl are trying to get their money out of it?
SMHarman
20-11-2003, 16:54
You still don't get it do you. If the licence fee is scrapped then I can't honestly see BBC1 closing down. It will do just as well in the private sector. Some of their radio stations will be sold and do well too no doubt but others will no doubt disappear and good riddance.
I'm not really that bothered. Its not like the TV Licence is in the same class as our tax's
I think if the BBC showed commercials it would have more of an impact on the current commercial channels than the BBC. Advertising space would double overnight, the cost of a prime slot around Corrie would fall as there would also be competing space around enders, the big tv ad spenders would not increase their budget, but spread it around (like rep points). You would have less cash going to the BBC and ITV and all the minor cable channels.
Cable subs would need to go up to compensate for the loss of revenue, people will reduce their packs and channels will fold.
I dont watch the crap and therefore shouldn't have to pay for other people to watch it either thanks :2up:
You watch freeview? As I said in that other thread, if the licence fee were dropped, the channels on Freeview would have to pay for the maintenance of their own transmitter network (which is done by the BBC at the mo). You'd probably end up paying for Freeview.
SMHarman
20-11-2003, 17:00
I dont watch the crap and therefore shouldn't have to pay for other people to watch it either thanks :2up:
Do you really mean to say that there is nothing you or anyone else who benefits from your licence fee watch or listen to that was produced by the BBC?
Football matches, Wimbledon, Live News stories, soaps, radio, concerts.
Your viewing is richer for them, NICAM stereo on analogue terestrial broadcasts was developed by them and is used the world over.
As someone said earlier (and I concurred with) in the thread the advert free childrens chanels are a benefit for anyone with rugrats.
Or you could say that decent channels aren't available terrestially and that paying money for them overtop of the license fee means ppl can't afford the extra cable channels, thus they are stuck in a 4 or, if they can properly receive channel 5, 5 channel choice. So naturally BBC2 wins and, not having advertisments helps? That or, since the channel is already paid for in a sense, ppl are trying to get their money out of it?Not at all. Go and have a look at the statistics on the page I linked to. As C4, then satellite, then C5 became available, BBC1 and ITV lost audience share, ITV most of all. BBC2 has remained almost completely constant, so it's audience share relative to the available choice has increased. BBC1, meanwhile, has gone from the second most popular TV channel in the UK to the most popular.
As for whether people can afford the licence, it amounts to a direct debit payment of £11 a month. I'm paying NTL £18 a month for the Base Pack and anyone who takes the family pack and any movies or sport can easily be spending £30 or £40 a month on TV. Are you really saying that £11 a month is causing such financial hardship?
Your point about people wanting to get their money's worth really doesn't stack up either. It would be a bloody-minded person indeed who would st through a programme they hated for half an hour, simply because they knew they'd paid for it through ther licence. You and I only sit through a TV programme if we're enjoying it.
Now these programmes have their place, (according to the Daily Mirror, even the Queen's a fan of Kirsty Gallagher :rofl: ) but are they a substitute for quality BBC drama like Waking the Dead or comedy like Have I got News for You or They Think it's All Over? And where in the schedule might there be room for quality factual programming like Watchdog and Panorama?
A touch of frost, the bill, tonight with trevor mcdonald, the sketch show, them and more have space on the ITV schedule
As for paying monthly, don't you end up paying 18months worth in the first year? How's that fair?
I quite enjoy the beeb and I don't mind paying for the licence.Just wish they would have a better attitude towards those of us who enjoy SF/fantasy and stop rearranging my favourite SF shows to fit sport around them.Like the cavalier way they kept taking Star Trek and Farscape off for a couple of weeks to show snooker.This is the only reason I even bother with DTV so I can actually get to watch SF shows.
Incog.
A touch of frost, the bill, tonight with trevor mcdonald, the sketch show, them and more have space on the ITV schedule
Indeed they do, and if there was that much more I think ITV's ratings slide might not have been so steep.
As for paying monthly, don't you end up paying 18months worth in the first year? How's that fair?
I don't like it much, but then unlike most Direct Debits, this one was thought up by a civil servant. I guess they didn't want to risk losing a chunk of cash overnight if people who previously had paid £121 up front suddenly were only paying £10 a month and taking a year to hand over all the cash. Remember most Direct Debits are paid in advance of the service you recieve, like phone line rental or your DTV. Paying your TV licence by DD means you pay 6 months in advance and 6 months in arrears. Unfortunately in order to get there you have to pay an extra 6 months in the first year.
I'm not complaining tho' - I could well have done without the £116 bill I got the other week for my new licence so I was happy to switch to direct debit.
Remember most Direct Debits are paid in advance of the service you recieve, like phone line rental or your DTV. Paying your TV licence by DD means you pay 6 months in advance and 6 months in arrears. Unfortunately in order to get there you have to pay an extra 6 months in the first year.
Also not forgetting that most Direct Debits give you a *discount* if you pay in that way because it reduces admin, whereas the TV licence can cost *more*!!
:spin:
Your viewing is richer for them, NICAM stereo on analogue terestrial broadcasts was developed by them and is used the world over.
Along with RDS (Radio Data Service, primarily used to identify radio stations) Parts of the MPEG2 codec (so, if you've ever watch any kind of digital TV or watched a DVD, you have benefitted). They were also the first company to broadcast anything digitally (they started initial tests of DTV back in the '80s and in the '90s started wider scale tests from Crystal Palace). Amazingly, this trial was conducted with the help of NTL (broadcast). DAB
There's a whole load of other stuff at the BBC r&d site http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd
Right, and you don't use the street lights in the street on the other side of town, so you shouldn't have to pay for them.
You don't use the facilities at your local old people's home, or get meals on wheels, or have any benefit out of cleaners mopping the floor at county hall, so you shouldn't have to pay for any of that either.
And what about the railways? You don't use the commuter lines into London so why should your taxes subsidise that either?
Or, a better example, the ferries linking the Hebrides to the mainland ... why should your tax pounds pay for islanders to maintain their lifestyle? No, of course not, they should all pay full fares, or move to the mainland if they don't like it.
We live in a society, Defiant. People who live in a society are supposed to support each other. That's why we pay taxes, duties and licence fees. The alternative is a selfish anarchy.
Here we go again. Somsone that thinks the TV licence is in the same league as other tax's :cry:
Whats wrong with the pro bbc brigade. You keep popping up defending them here because theirs only a few of you guys. GET IT YET
Here we go again. Somsone that thinks the TV licence is in the same league as other tax's :cry:
Whats wrong with the pro bbc brigade. You keep popping up defending them here because theirs only a few of you guys. GET IT YET
I wouldn't say that. I have only seen a couple of you anti BBC guys on here.
Here we go again. Somsone that thinks the TV licence is in the same league as other tax's :cry:
Whats wrong with the pro bbc brigade. You keep popping up defending them here because theirs only a few of you guys. GET IT YET
If thats the best reasoned argument you can come up with D then I suggest that you leave it 'cos your making yourself look stupid. :(
If thats the best reasoned argument you can come up with D then I suggest that you leave it 'cos your making yourself look stupid. :(
Thats great coming from you. You haven't come up with one decent argument for keeping this unjust stealth tax
Thats great coming from you. You haven't come up with one decent argument for keeping this unjust stealth tax
I would think that the vast majority of US TV output is an overwhelming argument for keeping at least *one* broadcaster that doesn't rely on either advertising revenue or subscriptions to pay its way!!
I would think that the vast majority of US TV output is an overwhelming argument for keeping at least *one* broadcaster that doesn't rely on either advertising revenue or subscriptions to pay its way!!
A very good point - the US produces some good stuff but you have to either buy the video or watch it on UK terrestrial TV to actually enjoy it!
I would think that the vast majority of US TV output is an overwhelming argument for keeping at least *one* broadcaster that doesn't rely on either advertising revenue or subscriptions to pay its way!!
Good point Graham.
SMHarman
21-11-2003, 11:52
I would think that the vast majority of US TV output is an overwhelming argument for keeping at least *one* broadcaster that doesn't rely on either advertising revenue or subscriptions to pay its way!!
But the output of HBO - things like from the earth to the moon and the 2nd world war 'band of brothers' thing, along with all the discovery channels show that commercial TV can produce good products. There also appears to be less of a political correctness about productions, friends could be produced with an all white cast, compare to this life, will and grace can have outragously camp gay characters. Anything UK produced seems to have political correctness built into the casting, sometimes at the expense of the expense of the jokes, for example the crouches http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/08_august/27/crouches.shtml that was written by Ian Pattison and according to many just did not reflect how a black family would interact, a potentially funny comedy (he also wrote Rab C Nesbit and more http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/talent/p/pattison_ian.shtml but just did not get black comedy in the same way Lenny Henry did.
However these are expensive(ish) subscription channels with highly developed commercial arms (there are discovery channel shops now).
I'm no big fan of Discovery, too much of its output is 'dumbed down' for the mass audience instead of tackling difficult issues head-on like Horizon.
Thats great coming from you. You haven't come up with one decent argument for keeping this unjust stealth tax
Then I suggest you re-read the thread and see what I've had to say.
Then I suggest you re-read the thread and see what I've had to say.
I've read it and there's nothing their that justify's a licence fee in this day and age. If you dont want sky you dont pay for it. If you dont want Cable you dont pay. If you dont wont anything to do with the BBC you have to pay for the people that do want it :grind:
I've read it and there's nothing their that justify's a licence fee in this day and age.
OK, so that means you think there was a day and age when a licence fee was justified. When was that, and why was it justified?
If you dont want sky you dont pay for it. If you dont want Cable you dont pay. If you dont wont anything to do with the BBC you have to pay for the people that do want it :grind:
You really don't get it do you? The BBC is not just a television station that you subscribe to if you happen to like the content. It is an organisation that maintains quality in British TV by:
1. Making programmes that are driven by quality, not by appeal to advertising revenue.
2. Encouraging new talent in acting, writing and production (it can do this because it can afford to take risks that commercial organisations can't)
3. Pioneering development in technical standards (the world's first high-definition TV service in 1936(?), development of the NICAM broadcasting standard, at the forefront of bringing 16:9 widescreen broadcasts to the UK, and more).
As such, it provides a service to every British TV viewer, whether or not they actually watch any BBC TV.
OK, so that means you think there was a day and age when a licence fee was justified. When was that, and why was it justified?
Simple in the early years of Television
You really don't get it do you? The BBC is not just a television station that you subscribe to if you happen to like the content. It is an organisation that maintains quality in British TV by:
1. Making programmes that are driven by quality, not by appeal to advertising revenue.
2. Encouraging new talent in acting, writing and production (it can do this because it can afford to take risks that commercial organisations can't)
3. Pioneering development in technical standards (the world's first high-definition TV service in 1936(?), development of the NICAM broadcasting standard, at the forefront of bringing 16:9 widescreen broadcasts to the UK, and more).
As such, it provides a service to every British TV viewer, whether or not they actually watch any BBC TV.
Do you really think I'm interested. Do you think the sun shine's outta their arse so much the private sector just can't compete with them. Sorry but your talking utter rubbish. The licence fee just gives the BBC a licence of there own to print money
Not at all. Go and have a look at the statistics on the page I linked to. As C4, then satellite, then C5 became available, BBC1 and ITV lost audience share, ITV most of all. BBC2 has remained almost completely constant, so it's audience share relative to the available choice has increased. BBC1, meanwhile, has gone from the second most popular TV channel in the UK to the most popular.
As for whether people can afford the licence, it amounts to a direct debit payment of £11 a month. I'm paying NTL £18 a month for the Base Pack and anyone who takes the family pack and any movies or sport can easily be spending £30 or £40 a month on TV. Are you really saying that £11 a month is causing such financial hardship?
Obviously that was cheek in mouth, but that's because I can afford it, perhaps unbelievably for yourself, others can't? I'm sure there are plenty of ppl (ppl in the 50-75 range, isn't 75 when ppl get it for free?) who can't afford it and do watch more broadcasting on the terrestial channels.
Do you really think I'm interested. Do you think the sun shine's outta their arse so much the private sector just can't compete with them. Sorry but your talking utter rubbish. The licence fee just gives the BBC a licence of there own to print money
In terms of Research and Development, the commercial TV companies, I really can't see how the Commercial TV stations do compete.
Unless you know different?
Simple in the early years of Television
And why was it justified back then? The USA has never had a licence fee. Why was there a time when it was ok for us to have one and for the USA to not have one?
Do you really think I'm interested.
Yes, given that you have posted in this thread 14 times (that's more than anyone else except me, and I'm definitely interested).
Do you think the sun shine's outta their arse so much the private sector just can't compete with them. Sorry but your talking utter rubbish. The licence fee just gives the BBC a licence of there own to print money
And thus spake the man down the pub, so he must be right. :banghead:
SMHarman
21-11-2003, 13:55
I've read it and there's nothing their that justify's a licence fee in this day and age. If you dont want sky you dont pay for it. If you dont want Cable you dont pay. If you dont wont anything to do with the BBC you have to pay for the people that do want it :grind:
Hmm, you raise an interesting point. "If you don't want cable you don't pay for it."
What is cable? Cable is a means of distribution, just as Satelite is. Both require maintainance and support, as do the numerous broadcast transmitters that send the terrestrial signals around this country in such high quality. Who should pay for those? The users of those signals, or everybody? Part of your licence fee goes to pay for the transmission of all the terrestrial signals, ITV C4 five, and all the DTT broadcasts also.
You buy road tax to use the roads, why not TV tax to pick up the VHF broadcasts?
SMHarman
21-11-2003, 14:05
Simple in the early years of Television
So now TV is risk free? No government support is needed? If it is risk free, why have Grananda and Carlton merged?
Do you really think I'm interested. Do you think the sun shine's outta their arse so much the private sector just can't compete with them. Sorry but your talking utter rubbish. The licence fee just gives the BBC a licence of there own to print money
And maybe try new televisual approaches, would startrek have come to be without Dr Who forerunning it or would SciFi have been too risky for a commercial outfit. Would the UK be a place where people come to make movies without the skills and training that the BBC provides? Would the private companies carry out as much training?
At least with the licence fee, it does what it says on the tin, you pay a fee, it goes (less collection costs and enforcement) to the BBC who spend it relatively well on television, radio and multimedia. In addition they capitalise on their archive to supplement this income and promote the past present and future of british television.
Now petrol tax and road tax, if only this all went on transport solutions (not just road, but rail, busses etc, we would not have the congestion we do, we would have a reliable consistently financed rail infrastructure (probably building maglev trains to glasgow).
If only national insurance all went to pensions and healthcare, we would have a state pension scheme that we could be proud of on the world stage.
Instead these are alternate revenue generation schemes, be gratefull that your licence fee does not go partly to central govt coffers.
cjmillsnun
21-11-2003, 14:06
Kronas,
When you look at the (compared to just about every foreign country) HIGH QUALITY output of all of our terrestial tv channels (include Freeview) then the small sacrifice of £121 a YEAR (that is only £2.33 a week) that restricts the advertising for the majority of people in this country to the small number of commercial stations, means that
a) the cost of advertising on TV is relatively low (but is set so that ITV and the other commercial stations just earn enough)
b) We get impartial news cover (remember that) - listen to BBC radio news on Radio 4 or on 5 Live or watch the news on BBC 4- Instead of Murdoch's populist xenophobic drivel.
c) We get 8 TV channels that provide a public service (with the possible exception of BBC parliament.)
d) We get 8 National Radio stations and countless local radio stations (all without advertisements)
e) There are high quality documentaries and informative programmes (eg Panorama and Horizon)
This is bloody good value for money. Especially as they pay for $ky, NTL and Telewest have them on their service.
The TV licence isn't a tax, because the BBC is NOT a government department (which leads me back to their impartiality)
downquark1
21-11-2003, 14:22
Look at sky, you pay a subscription much more than £121 a year AND they have plenty of advertisements.
cjmillsnun
21-11-2003, 14:24
BBC is not part of UK infrastructure!
If the BBC were to suddenly stop, we could all still live our lives in much the same way, except those working for the BBC of course.
The roads are infrastructure, but we pay road tax for it. If I don't have a car, I don't pay road tax. As for the railway, correcdt me if I am wrong, but don't you need to purchase a ticket to use it?
As for Big Ben, I don't want to see it go, but if I had to pay over £100 a year to keep it, my opinion would soon change.
Big Ben is not worth £100PA to me. It's only a frikkin bell after all. It could be replaced.
I think the TV lisence is an out and out CON. I do watch BBC and I agree they do make some damn fine programmes, but I only watch BBC1 & BBC2. I don't listen to the radio (except sometimes internet radio, which is comercial) and I don't have digital TV.
The Beeb **is** part of the UK infrastructure - they fund the TV transmitters (except NTL's) and radio transmitters and own most of Crown castle (who maintain said transmitters)
BTW is £2.33 a week a con for just BBC1 and BBC2??
Also yes you pay for a train ticket, but most of the money ends up as profit for the long distance operators like Richard Branson.
I could get into a long debate about renationalising the railways but I'm :notopic: already
cjmillsnun
21-11-2003, 14:33
Defiant
You don't like spam....
What is spam - it is adverts. And you want to scrap the licence fee so the bbc can introduce...... more TV SPAM! I don't ask for the channels and the product manufacturers to make adverts and put them on, but they do and I end up PAYING (by buying products and food etc) for them - just like spam.
:notopic:You buy road tax to use the roads
Erm, no, you don't! Road fund licence was abolished after WWII. You pay "vehicle excise duty", ie a tax on owning a car. :notopic:
BTW is £2.33 a week a con for just BBC1 and BBC2??
And the £100 million they spend on websites plus the £650 million they spend on all there radio stations. Who knows what else they spend on
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.