discussion The TV licence ?

[stona]

i disagree there................and equally the beeb make complete garbage just like the commercial channels

Of course it does. But when was the last time a commercial channel made something like 'Life on Earth' or showed the national remembrance ceremony from the cenotaph? Who showed the 'celebrations' on the anniversary of the D-Day landings?

The question really is do you want a public broadcasting service at all? It shows things like the service from the cenotaph because it is obliged to under the terms of its charter. Commercial broadcasters are not and will not.

If you don't mind commercials that's fine. I recorded Guy Martin last night and watched it without commercials this afternoon. Let's just say it took rather less time to watch than it did when broadcast. I saved twenty minutes of my life not being bombarded with adverts for stuff I don't want

If we want a public broadcasting service but don't want a licence fee then money would have to be raised in other ways. The licence fee in 2013/14 raised £3.7 billion of the BBCs £5 billion income. The money has to come from somewhere.

Put that £3.7 billion in perspective. In 2013 the UK government levied £612 billion in various taxes, duties, national insurance etc.

I think it's worth it, but it's a free country and others are quite entitled to disagree!

Cheers

Steve

 

[eddiesolo]

What got my goat was the add campaign they ran regarding the criminal record and prosecution you could face for not owning one! I'm sorry but sat at home watching something is a crime if you don't have a licence! Something wrong there...maybe I should just beat up old folk instead. As for a waste of money, I too have seen foreign TV and I just cannot watch it, ads every three mins and poor TV, so the quality is there, however, it is for the masses and I rarely watch the Beeb now, Top Gear was a must even the latest series seem watered down as to what they used to be. No F1 except highlights-the Beeb doesn't cater for me.

Si

 

[Ian M]

I think the bottom line is that the licence is to expensive for what you get.

There are way to many repeats and way to much sport!

All the daytime soaps are unwatched by me, I do like a good nature program or a good film though.

Ian M

 

[eddiesolo]

I do like a good nature program or a good film though.

I agree, that the nature programs or science programs can be very good, as for films, I do like the odd one, but with the price of DVD's now you can get then and watch when ever you want.

Si

 

[Guest]

Of course it does. But when was the last time a commercial channel made something like 'Life on Earth' or showed the national remembrance ceremony from the cenotaph? Who showed the 'celebrations' on the anniversary of the D-Day landings?The question really is do you want a public broadcasting service at all? It shows things like the service from the cenotaph because it is obliged to under the terms of its charter. Commercial broadcasters are not and will not.

If you don't mind commercials that's fine. I recorded Guy Martin last night and watched it without commercials this afternoon. Let's just say it took rather less time to watch than it did when broadcast. I saved twenty minutes of my life not being bombarded with adverts for stuff I don't want

If we want a public broadcasting service but don't want a licence fee then money would have to be raised in other ways. The licence fee in 2013/14 raised £3.7 billion of the BBCs £5 billion income. The money has to come from somewhere.

Put that £3.7 billion in perspective. In 2013 the UK government levied £612 billion in various taxes, duties, national insurance etc.

I think it's worth it, but it's a free country and others are quite entitled to disagree!

Cheers

Steve

You know what? You have changed my opinion on the subject.

I now support the TV licence, and here is why.

1 - If we didnt then as you say there is a lot of important programming that would be missed out. OK, I dont watch things on BBC 4 very often but things like SKy at Night are, IMO, an important part of TV history for the 2 or 3 people that watch it.

2 - If we didnt pay then the government would make up the shortfall, meaning that we would pay anyway. So, by paying the way we do at present means that we pay less in the long run. Afterall, Mr and Mrs Dole scrounger doesnt pay tax but they do pay for a TV licence (Eventually, after a court summons).

3 - The way it is at present we have a choice. Have a TV and pay the fee, or dont have a TV and dont pay the fee. When I first moved out of my parents home I was shocked by the cost of a TV licence, so ditched the TV and refused to pay the licence fee. OK, I had a few visits, but eventually, after looking round my house (including under the bed and in the airing cupboard) they took the hint and left me alone. However, with the internet becoming such an important part of my life I couldnt live without it.

4 - I probably dont have a proper viewpoint in which to debate anyway. I live in rented accomodation where the TV licence is included in the monthly rent and when Im working as a live in carer my client is usually age exempt anyway.

 

[Alan 45]

I doubt any programe the BBC does is that good , I've seen as good or better documentaries on the discovery channel and I think the docs on the first ww and d day were better than the ones I watched on the BBC but that's just my opinion as for the other stuff if the BBC couldn't do them I think they would be picked up by other stations

I stand by my opinion that the licence fee is out of date not fit for purpose and not value for money

But each to their own

 

[Guest]

Well. I think there is a difficulty in financing the BBC without it being ruined by commercial stuff like the world is already full of. I can't think of a way to fund them and have the quality. Perhaps split it into three main channels: Sport; Soaps and similar drama and competitions; and Factual etc. There would need to be a set-top box and it would allow a person to watch those channels that had been paid for.

I watch a lot of BBC, especially the history and factual things like science, also politics. The quality is outstanding. The BBC is very highly regarded in the world and it would be just like Britain to destroy it due to a lack of a solution. For those who do not appreciate the BBC (and that's fair enough, we are all different), if I were to vent my annoyance about all that football and other sporty stuff that is thrust into my living room at every occasion with often blanket coverage, the English language would not not have enough adjectives to describe it. Why should I pay for all that stuff?

 

[Alan 45]

Well. I think there is a difficulty in financing the BBC without it being ruined by commercial stuff like the world is already full of. I can't think of a way to fund them and have the quality. Perhaps split it into three main channels: Sport; Soaps and similar drama and competitions; and Factual etc. There would need to be a set-top box and it would allow a person to watch those channels that had been paid for.I watch a lot of BBC, especially the history and factual things like science, also politics. The quality is outstanding. The BBC is very highly regarded in the world and it would be just like Britain to destroy it due to a lack of a solution. For those who do not appreciate the BBC (and that's fair enough, we are all different), if I were to vent my annoyance about all that football and other sporty stuff that is thrust into my living room at every occasion with often blanket coverage, the English language would not not have enough adjectives to describe it. Why should I pay for all that stuff?

You wouldn't need a set top box Steve the channels can be switched on or off with existing boxes and through free view so there's no need for an extra box

Just like you but from the other side of the coin , I don't watch 99% of BBC programes I'd prefer to pay for what I want to watch as I do with sky , I like football but if you don't you have the choice to not have it

 

[stona]

I don't watch 99% of BBC programes I'd prefer to pay for what I want to watch as I do with sky , I like football but if you don't you have the choice to not have it

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The licence fee is compulsory if you want to watch TV, any TV and anyone who watches little or none of the BBCs output will feel understandably aggrieved.

Unfortunately I can't see any easy way out of this conundrum. If we want a PBS then we have to pay for it, one way or another.

Cheers

Steve

 

[flyjoe180]

Your regulators and Government need to take a look at the systems in place in countries which have abolished or never had the broadcasting fee or TV tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#Countries_where_the_TV_licence_has_been_abolished

In New Zealand the 'public broadcasting fee' was abolished in 1999. 'NZ On Air' was then funded by a direct appropriation from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. The two State owned channels pay large dividends to the Government. So we get free to air TV, local content and the only downside is approximately 20 minutes of advertisements per hour (which from reading here it looks like you endure anyway). If you want pay TV or pay-per-view, those options are open to anyone who wants to pay for them on subscription.

I can still remember being amazed at having to pay 50p to use the air at a service station in the UK in the late 90's to inflate my car tyres. That sort of carry on is unheard of in NZ. The UK has to be one of the biggest user-pays/taxed countries on the planet.

 

[flyjoe180]

 

[Guest]

No TV license here.

 

[Alan 45]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The licence fee is compulsory if you want to watch TV, any TV and anyone who watches little or none of the BBCs output will feel understandably aggrieved.Unfortunately I can't see any easy way out of this conundrum. If we want a PBS then we have to pay for it, one way or another.

Cheers

Steve

Your spot on Steve we would have to pay for it but at least we could limit the expenditure by being able to choose how much of the BBC we would want to watch

, now if and let's face it its a big if , we got rid of the TV licence fee what's the point if they one do one package of BBC ? So we either choose to have all BBC or no BBC , ! We could find ourselves spending more per year than we would of with the annual licence fee

Personally I don't think that would happen , there are several packages that providers employ today and I think they would use this model to do it for fear of people saying I won't watch any then and them being worse off

It's supply and demand , we have no idea of the demand due to us having to pay

 

[stona]

At the end of the day the BBC is a public service just like the health service or any other public service. As such it is funded by the government which means, ultimately, by all of we who pay our taxes and let's face it, you pay a tax when you buy just about anything.

A chunk of my taxes go towards financing the health service but if I'm fortunate enough not to need to use that service I don't get or ask for my money back

Cheers

Steve

 

[Alan 45]

At the end of the day the BBC is a public service just like the health service or any other public service. As such it is funded by the government which means, ultimately, by all of we who pay our taxes and let's face it, you pay a tax when you buy just about anything.A chunk of my taxes go towards financing the health service but if I'm fortunate enough not to need to use that service I don't get or ask for my money back

Cheers

Steve

At the end of the day Steve we need a health service we don't need a state run television service there's a big difference

 

[stona]

At the end of the day Steve we need a health service we don't need a state run television service there's a big difference

Well that's the debateable point. It's the question I posed some time ago, whether we want or need a public broadcasting service. We would all have to pay to obtain any quality free to air TV or watch all the crap, repeats and commercials on the current Freeview system.

We don't need a National Health Service either, plenty of countries don't have anything comparable to ours, but then we would all have to pay for private medical insurance or take our chances with whatever rudimentary public service there may (or may not) be.

When I travel in the EU I'm covered by mutual arrangements between the different states for health care (you can get the little blue European Health Insurance Card) but everywhere else I insure myself.

The difference isn't really so big in my opinion. It's just a question of which public services we choose to support. All of them could be provided privately/commercially, but at what cost? I might not live long enough to discover the answer to that but I fear the next couple of generations might.

I just have to say that I'm very impressed that on what is really a modelling forum we can all have such a sensible and informed discussion about public broadcasting, putting different views calmly and logically, even when we may disagree. It is most refreshing!

Cheers

Steve

 

[Alan 45]

I do see your point steve but no mater who we pay for a health service we do need it but I think we can all live without a TV service

I totally agree that it's great to have a mature debate on things , we may not all agree but I think we all respect each other's options which is great especially on the Internet

 

[stona]

I think we can all live without a TV service

I certainly agree with that.

The BBC's charter does oblige it to fulfil certain functions, some of which are undoubtedly useful and which other broadcasters don't or won't carry out, but nonetheless these are not life or death matters as might be the case with other services.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Alan 45]

I certainly agree with that.The BBC's charter does oblige it to fulfil certain functions, some of which are undoubtedly useful and which other broadcasters don't or won't carry out, but nonetheless these are not life or death matters as might be the case with other services.

Cheers

Steve

Yeah Steve I'd agree with that

 

[Guest]

Never the twain shall meet.

There are many people who reply on BBC. It is is some cases their whole life. There are also young children of pre school and school age who use the service. There are 50% of viewers who prefer BBC News (the remaining 50% are divided around another 5 News Broadcasters).There are those in Homes for the Old infirm and children. There are also hospitals and institutions for various needs. These services are only available by paying a licence fee. Near 20% of viewers are 75 upwards and their licence is free.

So it does seem to be the money which many are worried about. If the BBC were not there then what would we do about the above. The Government would then rely on Sky television for the services to the above listed. A calculation will reveal that all licence payers, as they are at present, will still be paying is some way towards the above services. That is in the rough about 40% of the cost of the present licence fee.

Radio. So now you may think that radio is free. It is for about 5% of the population but this so called free radio is actually paid by 95% of us who buy the so called TV licence fee. So No BBC no radio. Or if you want to retain BBC radio you pay for it. If the latter then you are probably up to 50% of the licence fee in cost in some other manner than the a licence fee. Plus the Government will lose a whole packet in income tax from top to bottom not only of those employed by the BBC but all the production companies all the associated industries involved in ensuring the BBC provide a service through out Britain and some parts of the world.

Lost to the United Kingdom will be production teams most of which are the best in the world and the envy of many countries. The skill and imagination. The production, directing, camera and sound teams. Do not think that Sky are going to use them. This will be a great loss to this countries ability to make programmes. Much export money will be loss as BBC programmes are sent to all quarters of the globe. Amazingly, as they are so good, this includes countries which do not use English.

ITV. Difficult to assess. A great amount of use is made by BBC and ITV to share facilities. Without BBC ITV are on their own. ITV are already tight on their budgets. With Sky on a loose rein and more viewers where will ITV advertisers place their advertisements ?

On pay as you go BBC. Not a chance. Or you will pay far more for what you want to get as the BBC will have to make the money they get now to enable the coverage plus for the administration of the system. Or they will be come another Sky and then probably die.

So without BBC Sky have a free range as they will be getting more income and guess what with less competition we all know what happens. The amount we pay for Sky will go up. Will this result in better programmes will this replace the quality of programmes put out by the BBC. In my opinion not one chance. That additional "bonus" money will go to shareholders. On top of that with out the competition more and more Sky subscription programmes will become the norm. A one off payment for instance for each F1. Additional expense for the viewer.

You may take this or that of the above and nibble at it. One thing is for certain the fact of the matter is that is the case.

I could go on about the quality of the programmes. Story telling, acting, camera work, editing. Neither ITV or Sky can compete. My youngest son is an editor and has edited many ITV programmes. He is well paid. But he, like many dedicated editors, would like to work for or on productions for the BBC. He considers BBC work so good that he would be prepared to forgo fees on a production for the introduction into the BBC world. Pay would be no better than ITV. With BBC on your CV this is an introduction into any production company. Now why would that be ?

Laurie