Bit random but makes a change from Brexit :)
Discussing TV licences with junior FC who is sharing a flat for next, and final, year at Uni.
There is the option for B&W or Colour TV licences,. The B&W comes in at £50.50 and the color 3X at £150.50.
My question is. Does anyone actually have a B&W TV? Do they still exist after all this time. Does anyone still manufacture them?
|
I doubt you can get one new and an old one unlikely to work without an external link feeding an RF signal.
When I went to university in 1989 I took a battery powered small TV. Could also run from a transformer. Technically I think I needed a TV licence but it could run off batteries so covered by my parents licence.
When I brought a colour TV I go a licence. Not cheap but the legal thing to do.
|
But if you need a receiver that can process colour but plugged into a B&W TV via RF.... does that count.
I doubt many are using B&W TVs now:
www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/10/black-and-white-tv-13000-homes
Anyway why not watch online including Netflix, etc.?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 26 Jul 18 at 02:10
|
>> Does anyone actually have a B&W TV?
Apparently in 2017 over 8000 people still did.
>> Does anyone still manufacture them?
According to the following link, no. I can vaguely remember someone like Argos still selling those small 5" portable B&W TVs in the earlier part of this century though.
conversation.which.co.uk/technology/black-and-white-tv-licence/
Also in that link it mentions that the BBC were still quality testing programmes for b&w transmission in 2015.
|
>> >> Does anyone actually have a B&W TV?
>>
>> Apparently in 2017 over 8000 people still did
They claim they did
|
|
TV license is archaic and should be abolished.
|
What makes it archaic?
And how would the BBC be funded?
|
>> And how would the BBC be funded?
Adverts, just like all the other channels. They're already making money from product placement.
|
Apart from the fact that most people wouldn't be Keen on that idea there's probably not enough revenue out there. TV advertising revenue has already been badly depleted. Trying to share the decreasing pot with the BBC is not going to work.
Besides what's wrong with paying a fairly modest fee for advertising free radio, and TV including iPlayer?
|
>> Besides what's wrong with paying a fairly modest fee for advertising free radio, and TV including iPlayer?
The wrong part of the law is that you have to pay the fee even if you don't actually watch live TV but as long as your TV is capable of receiving the broadcast.
It would have been fair if it were a pay per watch or similar subscription type service.
If anyone prefers to see ads and not pay license fee, s/he does not have that choice.
|
>> If anyone prefers to see ads and not pay license fee, s/he does not have
>> that choice.
It's a universal service, available to all owners of receiving equipment. Do you also want the freedom to withhold payment of part of your council tax because you don't use the library, etc. etc.?
Your choice, should you not want to pay it, is not to have receiving equipment.
Do you actually know anybody who has a TV licence but doesn't watch/listen to the BBC?
|
>> Do you actually know anybody who has a TV licence but doesn't watch/listen to the BBC?
I rarely watch TV - can't remember when I watched BBC last time. My TV is only used for internet streaming.
|
|
So you don't watch anything on iPlayer at all? And you presumably are paying for Netflix or similar?
|
|
he gets more Fluffy like by the day!
|
So you would like to scrap an efficient and simple method of funding which works extremely well for the vast majority and replace it with a costly subscription system or subject us to more advertising for the benefit of a group of people that have TV sets but claim they never watch the BBC?
|
>> The wrong part of the law is that you have to pay the fee even if you don't actually watch live TV but as long as your TV is capable of receiving the broadcast.
Nope. You only need a licence if you use it to watch or record programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, or to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer.
www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16
www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one
|
There are issues with the BBC notably that it broadcasts content that could/would be covered by commercial providers.
However, there are very good reasons to have a state funded public service broadcaster.
In the UK the State, through Ofcom ensure that PSBs abide by certain guidelines. This covers the variety, type and range, subjects, original programming, source and other classifications of broadcasts that they must make.
These requirements impact the BBC and Channel 4, Channel 5 and ITV.
ITV is constantly stating that it must significantly reduce its PSB content obligations since it maintains that it cannot afford to provide them with the competition upon it's advertising revenue stream. They are probably correct.
Channel 4, also a PSB, also deals with a funding gap because of those same requirements. Channel 4 is funded by a combination of advertising and government grants.
What is bringing this to a head is the decreasing TV advertising revenue streams.
20 years ago most advertising was spent on the TV and even then on a small number of channels. These days the overall advertising spend is now spread amongst so many sources, including cable, satellite, increase channel numbers, phone apps and the internet, that each area gets a smaller share.
Thus each commercial television channel is simply having to survive on less money. Hence, for example, the rise in reality TV, the cheapest form of broadcasting.
Logically therefore the BBC simply could not fund what it does if it went to an advertising model. Yet it is very important that it does what it does.
The current funding comes from the licence fee. The definition is more complicated these days than simply possessing a receiver, since it also covers Cable & Satellite TV from a set top box. As I recall VXFan has got the rules well understood.
I suspect that the approach to obtaining that revenue will have to change over time, though.
But, that funding will need to continue to come from the State. It is reasonably that the burden should fall largely upon those who make use of the service.
So what ya gonna do?
It is not as simple as a simple switch to advertising though presumably you realise that consumers pay the advertising revenue anyway?
And if you want to see other models, then try watching PSBs in the US, not the greatest things.
All in all, it's a pain but worth it.
This does not mean that I am a fan of the BBC, I am not. I support the need for it, nit it's current quality.
|
>> Apart from the fact that most people wouldn't be Keen on that idea
Have you got any evidence to confirm that?
|
>> >> And how would the BBC be funded?
>>
>> Adverts, just like all the other channels. They're already making money from product placement.
I prefer things as they are. Having to sell advertising largely dictates the types of programmes shown, and it seems likely that there are enough (or even too many) ad-funded channels chasing the available ad revenue and producing the popular content.
The BBC has to do a certain amount of that to maintain broad support, but can also fund good quality minority stuff. We are probably all members of minorities some of the time.
The fact that the majority of TV I watch is on the BBC suggests they are providing me with a worthwhile service, particularly as the cost is much lower than a typical Sky package.
|
|
I suppose sponsorship is another way the BBC could go, e.g., "This Promenade Concert is brought you by Kentucky Fried Chicken" and the image of Sir Henry Wood replaced by one of Col. Sanders.
|
Yes it is interesting. I must have seen that at some time although I couldn't recall the numbers.
What struck me was that well over half of the TV budget goes on BBC1, which I perceive as the channel most dedicated to 'popular' programming of the kind that commercial channels might do anyway, although perhaps not to the same quality. I have no problem with that. If there is to be general acceptance of the licence fee, then there must be popular programmes with big viewing figures, and the quality overall is IMO well ahead of most commercial offerings.
But it's astonishing that BBC4 was getting about 5% of what BBC1 gets. So the "PSB" element is arguably not sucking up an excessive proportion of the income.
Nevertheless, BBC4 has come under increased budget pressure since that pie chart was made and its value questioned.
I know some horror stories about the BBC, which a couple of close friends spent many years working in. But I'd hate to see it go.
|
Interesting info here
www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/tv-licence/
#7 If you have a TV but don't watch it, you don't need a licence
Many wrongly believe you need to be covered by a TV licence if you have the ability to watch 'live' TV, even if you don't watch it. You only need a licence if you actually watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer.
So, if you've got an aerial on your roof/satellite dish/TV with built-in Freeview etc, but you don't actually watch live TV, you don't need a licence.
|
|
So you don't need to pay for a licence then so presumably you are now happy.
|
|
Not sure Mr logo is keen on contributing to the greater good
|
|
But if you watch BBC channels on any platform (including Sky) live or downloaded you still need a licence.
|
>> Interesting info here
See my post further up that already had links explaining whether you need a licence or not.
|
|
Your links for useful. I'm not sure Movilogo understood.
|
|
A little bit of pruning going on in this thread?
|
>> A little bit of pruning going on in this thread?
Only two posts have been removed, one that got a bit too personal with their comments, and a reply from the person it was directed at.
|
Oh, I remember your post. I wouldn't have said there was anything much wrong with that.
Someone getting a bit over sensitive?
|
>> Oh, I remember your post. I wouldn't have said there was anything much wrong with
>> that.
The post alluding to Fluffy is still there. I think the deleted item was posted by Driver and probably was 'too near the knuckle' .
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 27 Jul 18 at 12:07
|
>>I think the deleted item was posted by Driver and probably was 'too near the knuckle' .
A simple change of grip should resolve that issue.
|
|
That will teach me to plead guilty without reviewing the facts! I had just assumed that they had deleted it for what I was thinking, not what I had written :)
|
|
Yes it was Driver's post and his latest post from this evening has been hidden too as I wasn't comfortable that he seemed to be articualting the potentially racist thought process which got his first post hidden, albeit much more subtly.
|
His point may have been insulting to the overly sensitive, but it was *NOT* racist.
Don't react badly by swinging too far the other way and allowing people to stifle conversation by whining about personal abuse.
|
>> Yes it was Driver's post and his latest post from this evening has been hidden
>> too as I wasn't comfortable that he seemed to be articualting the potentially racist thought
>> process which got his first post hidden, albeit much more subtly.
>>
For the record the posts were not racist, though they were aimed specifically at immigrants who come in to the country and want to change things to their ways or to what they want with no feelings for what is already here. Immigrants can be any nationality and are generally welcomed and considered a good thing, but some, push too hard without taking local sensitivities, traditions etc. in to consideration.
I would expect the same sort of response if I went to Germany and complained that their equivalent to the licence was cancelled along with the services it provides. BTW it's €210 so broadly equivalent price wise.
|
Black & White TVs - rtj70
