Looks like it might be the last one.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60014514
Might well a change of gov before 2027, still years away.
Who'd pay a subscription to view the BBC?
|
I would. I would say about 75% or more of everything I watch is on the Beeb. Though it's good to see that the quality of drama is improving on Netflix and Amazon.
I don't listen to much radio but 100% of what I do listen to is the Beeb.
|
That's quite high, I'd say about 10-15% of the things I watch are on the BBC. Iplayer isn't bad, there's some mini series I'd missed when they were on live that have been pretty good.
I use their news site a fair bit, I don't listen to BBC radio.
Might be a bit tricky to divide up the subscription for the websites, the iplayer, the live tv.
|
I wouldn't. I would say 20% or less of everything I watch is on the Beeb.
I listen to the wireless quite a lot, but only 5% of what I do listen to is the Beeb.
|
It's probably relevant that I don't watch sport or movies, and not much in the way of "light entertainment". Nothing in the daytime and hardly any news/current affairs.
Main TV diet is dramas and comedy panel show type stuff, plus a couple of the less idiotic quizzes (like Mastermind and Universally Challenged). And the occasional documentary or "real life" programme e.g. 24 hrs in police custody or that forensics one)
Last edited by: smokie on Sun 16 Jan 22 at 17:24
|
|
I'd pay. I can think of 5 BBC drama or comedy/drama series I've watched in the last year or so: Guilt, Motherland, Back to Life, The Outlaws and In My Skin. They were all excellent (and most are still on iPlayer). I use the streaming services too, but only pay for Netflix. I find some of their series go on for too long, leaving me with the feeling that they tend to milk situations. For me, Breaking Bad was an example of that - it was very good, but it lost me during Series 5a.
Last edited by: John Boy on Sun 16 Jan 22 at 19:15
|
I find Netflix is not worth the money - little output on there I would lash out for (I piggy back on my sons subscription) Ditto prime if it wasnt for amazon music and free delivery. Sky I have never had (well not since the days of hacking it via voyager) and missed it not one jot.
The threat to decimate the BBC is just pure spite.
|
>> I find some of their series go on for too long, leaving me with the feeling that they tend to milk situations
Not half. I'm sure they stretch them out - after all, the programmes are only to fill the space between adverts so there must be an incentive to do that. Sometimes they are so drawn out I go back to the crossword and inevitably when something eventually happens I miss it.
One of the things I like about old films is they get on with it. Usually no more than an hour and a half, often less, bish bosh and the story's told.
|
|
I only watch repeats on BBC. Oh wait....
|
The BBC licence fee of £157 is not at all unreasonable for what you get
In comparson I pay
£96 per year fo Netflix
£180 for Amazon Prime and Amazon Music
£96 for Audible books
£48 for a paid for podcast
How on earth did Nadine Dorries get to be Secretary of State responsible for Culture?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 16 Jan 22 at 15:27
|
|
One should pay for a independent broadcaster even if you don't watch it, otherwise you will end up with US style TV.
|
Unsurprisingly from this scumbag of an MP, she is trying to sell the commercialisation of an independent broadcaster as "preventing pensioners going to jail for non-payment of the license fee" and how we can fund and sell "great British content".
This shower really are a despicable bunch of brigands.
|
>> One should pay for a independent broadcaster even if you don't watch it, otherwise you
>> will end up with US style TV.
>>
I guess that some in the Coservative Party wuld sooner have a BBC version of Fox News presenter interviewing them than Laura Kuensberg.
If the concern was really the inability of the old to pay a a licence fee then it should be paid for by the government like it used to be. Most old people are of cause not in that postion.
The BBC is one of those institutions of which we should be proud not trying to destroy
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 16 Jan 22 at 16:59
|
I wonder if there is any area in between what we have now and US/Fox style TV, although the latter does come up a lot I'm not sure many here would watch it. It's very different from tv here.
How about some in 'feel' (if not funding style) of ch4 or itv.
|
|
US public service television is utterly dire. As is nearly all their TV to be fair.
|
|
It is very different from here that's for sure, but why would we end up with that here if the BBC were to go to subscription?
|
>> It is very different from here that's for sure, but why would we end up
>> with that here if the BBC were to go to subscription?
It is subscription, thats what the license fee is
|
|
I think you know what I mean.
|
>> I think you know what I mean.
I do and you are not comprehending. Its delivered terrestrially, from local transmitters, 60 odd million people receive it so you cant suddenly scramble it and stop people watching it, Subscription is impossible, so you have a license fee. - the subscription.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 16 Jan 22 at 18:55
|
|
That wasn't what I was getting at, why would any other alternative method of funding/subscription/advertisment on the BBC mean a Fox/US style channel/service/programming?
|
>> That wasn't what I was getting at, why would any other alternative method of funding/subscription/advertisment
>> on the BBC mean a Fox/US style channel/service/programming?
It wouldnt we already have that with sky, it would be a PBS US style channel. And the Quality of ITV/C4 & C5 would decline as there is only so much advertising revenue to hoover up
|
>> >> That wasn't what I was getting at, why would any other alternative method of
>> funding/subscription/advertisment
>> >> on the BBC mean a Fox/US style channel/service/programming?
>>
>> It wouldnt
Thanks.
C5 would decline
I'm not sure that's possible.
|
>US public service television is utterly dire.
The quality of US Public Service broadcasting really depends on where you live. The service in Austin was actually quite good with lots of local interest stuff mixed in with national broadcasts.
Like our regional BBC/ITV stations.
|
>> How on earth did Nadine Dorries get to be Secretary of State responsible for Culture?
>>
She's been on I'm A Celebrity, so she's an expert.
|
We need public service broadcasting and it is right in my view that it should be properly funded and independent, which this government hates. I'm very happy with the licence fee. A subscription would have to be significantly higher to provide the same content without advertising.
It's not the government's BBC, it's ours and they should damn well leave it alone.
I'd certainly pay £20-£25 a month for the BBC we have now but I fear that without the licence fee it will deteriorate badly.
|
I guess the govt are playing to the tune of Murdoch and others who want to totally commercialise TV and start a race to the bottom with regards the quality of programs shown.
Whilst I think the fee is a PITA and contributes to a disproportionate number of females going to prison (for non-payment of fines for watching without a licence), at the end of the day, the BBC provides a universal service which is generally good quality.
If we see what is on Sky, which is paid for by both subscription and advertising, and ITV which is paid for by advertising, I think in this household, most of our viewing is of BBC and ITV content with BBC at about 65%.
The quality of homegrown Sky content is disappointing and our subscription costs at least 2 times and soon to be nearly 3 times the cost of the BBCs fee.
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 16 Jan 22 at 19:09
|
>> Whilst I think the fee is a PITA and contributes to a disproportionate number of
>> females going to prison (for non-payment of fines for watching without a licence),
The disproportionate number of, er, none, zero, zilch females in prison.
While there are, um, let's think, no, nowt, nought males in prison.
The chip on your shoulder about authority seems to have come unstuck again, zippy!
"“TV Licensing” found 174,416 people watching TV without a licence in 2019/20, and there were a total of 114,000 convictions of TV licence fee evaders in 2019 (up 3% from 2015).
However, as of June 30 2020, there were zero people in prison for failing to pay the fine in respect of the non-payment of a TV licence in England and Wales.""
|
I guess it's one advantage of having a govt that no doubt has seen the light (is too tight to manage a properly funded legal and prison service), but historically people have gone to prison:
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/29/bbc-licence-fee_n_4163939.html
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 16 Jan 22 at 22:14
|
>> I guess it's one advantage of having a govt that no doubt has seen the
>> light (is too tight to manage a properly funded legal and prison service), but historically
>> people have gone to prison:
What, in your opinion, should be the sanctions and the final sanction on people who refuse to comply with the law?
|
The licence fee is a tax on the ownership of a TV. As just about 100% of homes have a TV, it is no more than an add-on to the community charge/rates/poll tax.
The original licence fee was introduced in 1946 - it was entirely reasonable that a new technology needed special funding arrangements - TV ownership was expensive, only a single UK broadcaster, and no commercial alternatives.
A far sighted move which worked well for ~4 decades. Since the 1980s alternative TV services have increased and now include online. Much BBC output is now similar or derived from commercially available alternatives.
The state funded broadcaster concept is well past its sell by date - unless for propaganda purposes. BBC younger viewer audience has declined rapidly, leaving mainly the oldies".
What I am prepared to pay for are services (TV and radio) which may include news services and limited programming which is not availably commercially and high quality. The rest should not be funded by taxpayers.
If deleted other programming is commercially worthwhile, I am sure Amazon, Netflix etc will fund them through subscription. If not they simply disappear from the airwaves.
So personally I completely welcome the proposal that the BBC licence fee is dismantled. Any residual funding to come via normal taxpayer funder routes - eg: DCMS.
|
>> The licence fee is a tax on the ownership of a TV. As just about
>> 100% of homes have a TV, it is no more than an add-on to the
>> community charge/rates/poll tax.
No it isn't. It funds the BBC.
Incidentally, the licence was introduced in 1923 for radio. It was increased in 1946 to cover television,
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 16 Jan 22 at 20:45
|
P.S.
Those interested in the BBC might like the podcast "British Broadcasting Century".
bbcentury.podbean.com/
|
The headwind the BBC and the licence fee face is that very few under 30s consume BBC output, be it on TV or radio. They’re unlikely to shift to it as they age; streaming is just too convenient. Even I, at 50, consume very little BBC output as a proportion of total media consumed. So it has to change. You can’t have a model where you tax the equipment you watch live TV on and expect those that don’t consume live TV to still pay.
The BBC needs to stop competing with commercial TV, go back to proper public broadcasting and be funded through some form of grant from general taxation. Perhaps offset by income from BBC selling the back catalogue. Or, if Bruce Springsteen’s back catalogue went for $500 million, the BBCs back catalogue has to be worth, what, 100 times that? $50 billion is around £40 billion. Create a sovereign entertainment fund and use the couple of billion a year it generates to fund a slimmed down BBC :)
|
This bungalow I've bought keeps getting letters from BBC licensing. I don't like the threatening tone, they seem to assume whoever's living there hasn't got a licence and should have one. It's not occupied!
I've decided to be non-compliant and if anyone comes knocking, I'll tell them to go forth and multiply.
|
Indeed Tom. Friends a few doors up are a younger couple and have never had a TV at this address, yet they get letters from TV licensing threatening them with prosecution.
This is so wrong, I've never heard of the DVLA threatening people who don't have a car with prosecution for not having VED !
I imagine this could be quite worrying for people even older than me and less robust !
Ted
|
>>
>> This is so wrong, I've never heard of the DVLA threatening people who don't have
>> a car with prosecution for not having VED !
>>
Agreed. I had the same treatment when I had my first house. Was too busy for TV and couldn't afford one anyway.
Got an "inspector" round one day when I was home and I told him I didn't have a TV, which I didn't.
He said he would like to come in and check and had the cheek to put his foot in the door!
I told him he could like all he wanted, but he wasn't coming in and if he didn't remove his foot I would do it for him. At the time I was as fit as a fiddle and looked it so he took the hint.
|
Isn't it Capita that run the TV Licencing 'enforcement'?
They have quite a simple business model. Their assumption is that every household has a TV set and is watching terrestrial TV. Having a full list of homes they marry that up to their list of issued Licences. Any that don't tick both boxes is fair game for their harassment tactics.
DVLA intoduced 'Continuous Insurance' which obliges you to insure or SORN. Anything not in those categories is followed up.
As for TV detector vans they were just another form of intimidation I doubt that they could actually penetrate peoples deduce what you were watching on TV.
Having said that a friend who is a real electrical whizz having just retired as a university lecturer on all matters electrical informed me that the old 625/405 line TVs didn't use all the lines and the surplus transmitted information. I dot know if it was a wind up but we were sidetracked and never questioned it.
|
>>
>> Having said that a friend who is a real electrical whizz having just retired as
>> a university lecturer on all matters electrical informed me that the old 625/405 line TVs
>> didn't use all the lines and the surplus transmitted information. I dot know if it
>> was a wind up but we were sidetracked and never questioned it.
>>
Isn't that what facilitated teletext, with the data transmitted in loops on the unused sections?
|
>>informed me that the old 625/405 line TVs didn't use all the lines and the surplus transmitted information
That's where Ceefax/Oracle lived.
Presumably he was referring to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletext#Data_transmission rather than some ability to transfer information from your set to the outside world.
|
>> Having said that a friend who is a real electrical whizz having just retired as
>> a university lecturer on all matters electrical informed me that the old 625/405 line TVs
>> didn't use all the lines and the surplus transmitted information. I dot know if it
>> was a wind up but we were sidetracked and never questioned it.
TV detection died with flat screens. CRT tubes used to transmit frequency radiation
|
>> This bungalow I've bought keeps getting letters from BBC licensing. I don't like the threatening
>> tone, they seem to assume whoever's living there hasn't got a licence and should have one. It's not occupied!
>> I've decided to be non-compliant and if anyone comes knocking, I'll tell them to go forth and multiply.
I wouldn't worry, as I've moved a fair bit, had to send the bill to a different address, had property unoccupied etc over the years, I've learnt they are completely hopeless at anything other than the most straightforward set of circumstances.
They'll send various letters out with greater amounts of red on them, then one in a red envelope, next it just goes back to start the letter sending cycle.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 17 Jan 22 at 11:03
|
|
There should be a public register, a bit like car tax, MOT and insurance. If you think a neighbour is watching Tv, you could put their address into the register to see if they have a licence.
|
|
You could call it Neighbourhood Watching
|
|
I knew a guy who worked in 'radio interference' in the '60s and '70s, a part of BT the dealt with TV licencing. He admitted they would go to a post office and compare addresses with licence holders. They'd drive a yellow 15cwt van with a couple of conical aerials on the roof. Just a pass down the road was normally enough to get folk buying licences. He used to tell a story about how he was working in the area of where his parents lived and he used the van to visit them one lunchtime. The local sub post office ran out of licence application forms that afternoon!
|
>> post office and compare addresses with licence holders. They'd drive a yellow 15cwt van with
>> a couple of conical aerials on the roof. Just a pass down the road was
>> normally enough to get folk buying licences.
A fully equipped van could - quite easily - detect a TV in use, even the channel being watched. As a technique it was also used to hack PC monitors remotely.
Flat screens did for it, they radiate next to nothing.
|
>> Flat screens did for it, they radiate next to nothing.
Now he tells us!
I've just reluctantly forked out for mine, some 3 months overdue, by way of a mini protest.
|
BBC licence fee - smokie
