TV Licence and iPlayer

[Old Bones]

Just a reminder to play nicely or I will close this thread. It's pretty much run its course now I think.

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree. One of the problems about this subject is that its often about two different worldviews, and so often I've seen debates that just become reiteration of a position.

However, lets answer Dewi's points, where possible.

Well, I see where you're coming from, but you're comparing apples and oranges. The BBC, as discussed, is a public broadcaster and paid for via the license fee (and partially BBC Worldwide after the shareholders get their commercial cut) so is there really a way to measure the BBC? Remove the license fee, then we can measure how popular the BBC is. Once their 'enforced' funding is removed, once you can't go to prison for not paying... then we can do the numbers.

Firstly, BBC Worldwide's shareholders are the BBC (and to answer a later point, the BBC is no more likely to publicly publish the exact price paid for the rights to show Dr Who in a country than any of their commercial rivals - they are not complete idiots). Since you cannot test a path not yet taken, we have no idea exactly what would happen if the licence fee was abolished, but someone at the LSE did do some modelling http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyp...ing-the-bbc-licence-fee-benefit-the-consumer/, and concluded that:

Cutting the BBC licence fee could therefore be damaging not only in financial terms – even if advertisements were allowed – but also in terms of content. In exchange for a limited economic gain, UK households might end up with an irreparable loss in the quality of the programs they have seen so far.

The Reuters Institute has also done a study, which examined what would happen if the BBC disappeared (and therefore no licence fee at all) https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/What if there were no BBC TV_0.pdf
The conclusion was much the same - less choice, lower quality, and an economic impact in many areas where we do well, such as film production.

We do have an actual experiment to see what would happen if people were deprived of any BBC services for a period, and how they would feel about that http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ified-and-incredibly-good-value-10471116.html & https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...yers-dont-like-life-without-the-bbc-after-all(the original data is here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/pdf/lifewithoutthebbc.pdf ).

The biggest impact was on the people who had either not wanted to pay the licence fee at all, or wanted to pay a reduced rate. There were 48 households (out of 70) in this group, so it was weighed against people who supported the licence fee. After just nine days, two thirds of that group had changed their minds. In fact, the final result was something like 90% support for the licence fee from the 70 families as a whole. Of course thats just a single study, but its interesting that Sky customers continue to use BBC services in about the same amount as everyone else, even though they have paid a great deal more to have a much wider range of channels and original content. If someone can come up with more data, that would be great.

Personally, I couldn't give a stuff what happened to Clarkson either way - at the end of the day he got paid a lot more by Amazon, so he's hardly going to starve.

Its public broadcasting. It should cover everyone, no matter what the ratings. There needs to be a wider range of programmes covering a wider range of subjects, or the BBC is not fit for purpose. Popularity contests are playground fodder... if you're paid for by the public, use the 'enforced' cash collected to cover everything from rock collecting to deep sea diving, historic stamps to Pokemon cards. Sorry, but its not what sells... its public broadcasting... you can't have your cake and eat it.

But the BBC does do its best to cover everyone, from deep sea diving (there was a series on BBC2 a year or two ago), historic stamps (I havn't seen one, but suggest it), to Pokemon cards (unlikely, but Antiques Roadshow might have a spot). And if they were just after ratings, why would they put Antiques Roadshow, Countryfile (opposite X Factor!) or Songs of Praise on BBC1 on a Sunday evening? And in answer to a later question, the BARB data isn't yet available for All Aboard! The Country Bus, which was on the 29th August, but almost a million might have watched it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...orkshire-dales-drives-nearly-a-million-view2/, ). Last years Canal Trip (' a two hour uninterrupted, unedited canal boat trip. That's it. No gimmicks or music' ) got half a million viewers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc...p-nearly-doubles-BBC-Fours-usual-viewers.html

So yes, the BBC does make and show stuff that has a very limited audience (or so you might think). And it does make stuff that lots of people like, often unexpectedly (like Bakeoff). And stuff that we just like (Poldark).

It also broadcasts stuff in Gaelic, Welsh, (the viewing numbers of which are very small), supports The Proms, produces kids TV (at one point some years ago they were the only source of terrestrial kids TV), and make documentaries about all sorts of stuff (The history of Britain's nuclear deterrent, illuminated manuscripts, The Great Fire of London, Mammoths, Wild Scotland, The Story of Muscials, The Congo, Music in the 18th Century, Vogue, Sellafield, and The Story of Indie are all on this week). Not all of it is great and not all of it is to my taste, but there is usually something for everyone.

The same goes for radio. Radio 2 is the single most popular radio station in the UK, and Radio 2 not far behind. Commercial stations have complained that the BBC does the same thing as they do https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2010/oct/26/radio-1-commercial-playlist . The BBC has argued otherwise, but thanks to a great website called Compare My Radio http://comparemyradio.com/ you can test that for yourself.

Put up something like Heart against Radio 2, and you'd think it would be much the same. When you compare the two http://comparemyradio.com/compare/BBC_Radio_2/Heart_London you discover that Radio 2 plays about 5 times as many different songs as Heart does, and they dont have that much cross over. Radio 1 was almost the same story. And Heart or Capital v BBC6 Music was stunning - there was practically no crossover at all, and 6 Music played a stunning mix of music (its the only station that played The Indigo Girls). Try it for yourself. What hits home is just how limited the commercial playlists are ('More music variety' my ****). And dont even start on The World Service, Radio 3, LW and Radio 4.

I have to admit I'm not sure what this means:

Fine, but it doesn't need prime time. It needs to be relegated to an earlier slot and be replaced with gangta graffiti. We have to have content that represents everyone and rotate it at prime time. Remember, the BBC is a not for profit organisation. Lets have some consistency to the argument.

It would seem perverse most to make sure that a popular (perhaps expensively made) production should only be broadcast when most people could not/would not watch it. Most daytime TV is relatively cheap, because far fewer people are watching (although my Dad loves Cash in the Attic, and we dont dare even speak to him during Eggheads), although the BBC has made (expensive) quality period dramas like The Indian Doctor and Father Brown for the afternoon slot. But putting Poldark at 5pm, and then having a 2 hour programme about Brecht at 9pm on Sunday on BBC1 would seem strange to most. If it puts expensive popular programmes when nobody would watch them, wouldn't that be a waste of their money?

I'm sure everyone knows Alf Garnett is a character, nobody actually thinks Warren Mitchell has a doppleganger. As for the others, there is no denying their material is no longer shown on mainstream TV. There are plenty of repeats of old shows, many many shows are repeated year in year out, but there are exceptions. And those, generally, are guilty of breaking NewSpeak. As the point I made earlier... that is why comedy isn't funny any more on the BBC.

I merely read the comment as it was written. There are lots of old comedies that are repeated, and a vast number that are not, largely because they were not funny at the time, and even those that were have often not aged well. In the case of Alf Garnett, the language used simply would not be acceptable now, and indeed wasn't in the eighties, when the BBC made a follow-on series (if you think thats 'newspeak', thats up to you).

However, one of the key reasons its not on TV is because much of the first three series were wiped in the 1970's (so that they could reuse the tapes),much of it was shot in B & W, and much of whats survives isn't in great quality for broadcast. Network's licence for the DVD's seems to have expired, but some copies from their previous release are still around. But the BBC series from the 80's is available.

Comedy is a very personal thing, so whats funny and whats not is up to the individual.

For such an informed fellow Old Bones, did it not cross you mind that the reference to broadcast signals were about BBC radio? You know, the ones on FM signals? You know you can listen to the radio on your phone don't you?

Again, I read what was written.

Erm, the charter is based on the premise of public funding. Remove the public funding, the BBC needs to change the charter, adapt, live in the real world. Sorry, but the BBC may not be able to be sold directly, but its funding can be removed and it can left to the free market to decide whether it survives. An experiment I would very much like to see run because I don't think the BBC would last a year without the threat of prison to pay for it.

Briainist over at UKFree.TV discussed the various scenario's if the BBC had to be funded from other sources, such as subscription https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052194/BBC_2017_The_problem_with_turning_Freeview_into_Pa , or advertising https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052166/PGSTART20/

The numbers weren't great for the BBC, or possibly the viewing public, but they were catastrophic for the commercial channels. The bulk of them would be bankrupt almost overnight. The only one to do well would be Sky.

I anticipate your pedanticism - they were of course sold off under the Major government!

But here I will Just how do the BBC do their best in comparison to other broadcasters to ensure their full range of services are available to all? I know numerous locations where the BBC is not available to the license paying public, but I suspect they are among the 11 million households that don't pay the license fee.

There are certain places where its impossible to get any terrestrial signals, and some where its impossible to get a satellite signal either, (the occasional very unlucky person cannot get either) but this due to geography, and as far as possible, PSB stations use Light transmitters to 'fill in'. UkFree has had a fair number of complaints from people who have gotten used to suddenly having BBC4 HD (for the Olympics) and are upset that its gone again from their light transmitter. Looking at the Brighton Light transmitters , Trawden (Lancs) https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Trawden/PGSTART20/irt801579#b801579 and Dollar (Scotland) https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Dollar, because the first two just happened to have been mentioned recently, and I just randomly chose a Scottish one, you can see that you will get always get all the BBC channels (apart from BBC4 HD and possibly CBeebies HD), plus the bulk of the ITV and C4 stations, and C5/C5 HD.

The pompous part comes from you presuming that your audience, ie the people here on BCUK, are ill-informed on the subject.

In fact I was referring to the people in the original polling. However, I dont expect most people to know those figures, any more than the bulk of us know exactly how much its costs per averge NHS patient per year, the percentage breakdown of spending by government department, the total trade imbalance between the UK and Sweden, the number of regional sorting offices, or how much the UK's spending deficit currently is (ministers certainly dont). We dont really have this sort of stuff in our head, which is perfectly understandable.

But neither should we base public policy on 'what we feel', without any understanding of what actually involved. So, what is the numbers of total UK TV ad spend or what are estimated costs of a change to subscription? Without that information, how can we judge if they are a good idea?

Lets return to the fact that the BBC is a public broadcaster. Paid for by the public and there to serve the public. Not to chase ratings. I know you don't like that simple fact, but it is a simple fact. And I'd argue with you all day about the statement 'We all pay, and we all get something back'... I'm sorry, but you haven't proved that and you can not prove it. Because the BBC doesn't give back to everyone, it gives back to those it panders to with its bias. Those outside said bias can just pay and suck it.

Who doesn't it give something to, and what bias?

Imagine the telly you could afford if you were not having £145 a year stolen from you by the BBC

In this market, not a lot, to be honest, but you might get a 32in from Argos, although its probably only going to have Freeview.

Wow, you mean if I scrimp and save, I can give my hard earned to a huge corporation that isn't accountable at all to me? You mean if I give up just £145, I too can watch an athlete in my living room, if I just give away money to a wasteful quango that tries to teach my kids rubbish through its skewed view of children's television? Blimey... where do I sign up?

OK, so no BBC, so your left with the commercial channels (which of course your still ultimately paying for, possibly as much as 15p a day). Assuming you not going for Netflix or Prime (which is £80-96 a year, but you've got your broadband on top of that) or Sky (cheapest package 28.8p a day https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052166/PGSTART20/), you've saved some cash. But you've still got pay for a screen of some kind. And your going to have to like what they give you.

How is the BBC teaching 'kids rubbish through its skewed view of children's television'? My kids love CBBC, which regularly hoovers up most of the BAFTA's for kids TV. Yes, they try to watch the rubbish PopTV whenever they can, but its wall to wall ads. I have to admit that CBeebies/CBBC is often pretty educational for adults as well - I was watching Nina and the Neurons some years back with my kids, and suddenly realised that she was giving the best explanation of 'torque' that I'd ever heard.

 

[dewi]

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree. One of the problems about this subject is that its often about two different worldviews, and so often I've seen debates that just become reiteration of a position.

However, lets answer Dewi's points, where possible.



Firstly, BBC Worldwide's shareholders are the BBC (and to answer a later point, the BBC is no more likely to publicly publish the exact price paid for the rights to show Dr Who in a country than any of their commercial rivals - they are not complete idiots). Since you cannot test a path not yet taken, we have no idea exactly what would happen if the licence fee was abolished, but someone at the LSE did do some modelling http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyp...ing-the-bbc-licence-fee-benefit-the-consumer/, and concluded that:



The Reuters Institute has also done a study, which examined what would happen if the BBC disappeared (and therefore no licence fee at all) https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/What if there were no BBC TV_0.pdf
The conclusion was much the same - less choice, lower quality, and an economic impact in many areas where we do well, such as film production.

We do have an actual experiment to see what would happen if people were deprived of any BBC services for a period, and how they would feel about that http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ified-and-incredibly-good-value-10471116.html & https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...yers-dont-like-life-without-the-bbc-after-all(the original data is here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/pdf/lifewithoutthebbc.pdf ).

The biggest impact was on the people who had either not wanted to pay the licence fee at all, or wanted to pay a reduced rate. There were 48 households (out of 70) in this group, so it was weighed against people who supported the licence fee. After just nine days, two thirds of that group had changed their minds. In fact, the final result was something like 90% support for the licence fee from the 70 families as a whole. Of course thats just a single study, but its interesting that Sky customers continue to use BBC services in about the same amount as everyone else, even though they have paid a great deal more to have a much wider range of channels and original content. If someone can come up with more data, that would be great.

Personally, I couldn't give a stuff what happened to Clarkson either way - at the end of the day he got paid a lot more by Amazon, so he's hardly going to starve.



But the BBC does do its best to cover everyone, from deep sea diving (there was a series on BBC2 a year or two ago), historic stamps (I havn't seen one, but suggest it), to Pokemon cards (unlikely, but Antiques Roadshow might have a spot). And if they were just after ratings, why would they put Antiques Roadshow, Countryfile (opposite X Factor!) or Songs of Praise on BBC1 on a Sunday evening? And in answer to a later question, the BARB data isn't yet available for All Aboard! The Country Bus, which was on the 29th August, but almost a million might have watched it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...orkshire-dales-drives-nearly-a-million-view2/, ). Last years Canal Trip (' a two hour uninterrupted, unedited canal boat trip. That's it. No gimmicks or music' ) got half a million viewers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc...p-nearly-doubles-BBC-Fours-usual-viewers.html

So yes, the BBC does make and show stuff that has a very limited audience (or so you might think). And it does make stuff that lots of people like, often unexpectedly (like Bakeoff). And stuff that we just like (Poldark).

It also broadcasts stuff in Gaelic, Welsh, (the viewing numbers of which are very small), supports The Proms, produces kids TV (at one point some years ago they were the only source of terrestrial kids TV), and make documentaries about all sorts of stuff (The history of Britain's nuclear deterrent, illuminated manuscripts, The Great Fire of London, Mammoths, Wild Scotland, The Story of Muscials, The Congo, Music in the 18th Century, Vogue, Sellafield, and The Story of Indie are all on this week). Not all of it is great and not all of it is to my taste, but there is usually something for everyone.

The same goes for radio. Radio 2 is the single most popular radio station in the UK, and Radio 2 not far behind. Commercial stations have complained that the BBC does the same thing as they do https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2010/oct/26/radio-1-commercial-playlist . The BBC has argued otherwise, but thanks to a great website called Compare My Radio http://comparemyradio.com/ you can test that for yourself.

Put up something like Heart against Radio 2, and you'd think it would be much the same. When you compare the two http://comparemyradio.com/compare/BBC_Radio_2/Heart_London you discover that Radio 2 plays about 5 times as many different songs as Heart does, and they dont have that much cross over. Radio 1 was almost the same story. And Heart or Capital v BBC6 Music was stunning - there was practically no crossover at all, and 6 Music played a stunning mix of music (its the only station that played The Indigo Girls). Try it for yourself. What hits home is just how limited the commercial playlists are ('More music variety' my ****). And dont even start on The World Service, Radio 3, LW and Radio 4.

I have to admit I'm not sure what this means:



It would seem perverse most to make sure that a popular (perhaps expensively made) production should only be broadcast when most people could not/would not watch it. Most daytime TV is relatively cheap, because far fewer people are watching (although my Dad loves Cash in the Attic, and we dont dare even speak to him during Eggheads), although the BBC has made (expensive) quality period dramas like The Indian Doctor and Father Brown for the afternoon slot. But putting Poldark at 5pm, and then having a 2 hour programme about Brecht at 9pm on Sunday on BBC1 would seem strange to most. If it puts expensive popular programmes when nobody would watch them, wouldn't that be a waste of their money?



I merely read the comment as it was written. There are lots of old comedies that are repeated, and a vast number that are not, largely because they were not funny at the time, and even those that were have often not aged well. In the case of Alf Garnett, the language used simply would not be acceptable now, and indeed wasn't in the eighties, when the BBC made a follow-on series (if you think thats 'newspeak', thats up to you).

However, one of the key reasons its not on TV is because much of the first three series were wiped in the 1970's (so that they could reuse the tapes),much of it was shot in B & W, and much of whats survives isn't in great quality for broadcast. Network's licence for the DVD's seems to have expired, but some copies from their previous release are still around. But the BBC series from the 80's is available.

Comedy is a very personal thing, so whats funny and whats not is up to the individual.




Again, I read what was written.



Briainist over at UKFree.TV discussed the various scenario's if the BBC had to be funded from other sources, such as subscription https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052194/BBC_2017_The_problem_with_turning_Freeview_into_Pa , or advertising https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052166/PGSTART20/

The numbers weren't great for the BBC, or possibly the viewing public, but they were catastrophic for the commercial channels. The bulk of them would be bankrupt almost overnight. The only one to do well would be Sky.

I anticipate your pedanticism - they were of course sold off under the Major government!



There are certain places where its impossible to get any terrestrial signals, and some where its impossible to get a satellite signal either, (the occasional very unlucky person cannot get either) but this due to geography, and as far as possible, PSB stations use Light transmitters to 'fill in'. UkFree has had a fair number of complaints from people who have gotten used to suddenly having BBC4 HD (for the Olympics) and are upset that its gone again from their light transmitter. Looking at the Brighton Light transmitters , Trawden (Lancs) https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Trawden/PGSTART20/irt801579#b801579 and Dollar (Scotland) https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Dollar, because the first two just happened to have been mentioned recently, and I just randomly chose a Scottish one, you can see that you will get always get all the BBC channels (apart from BBC4 HD and possibly CBeebies HD), plus the bulk of the ITV and C4 stations, and C5/C5 HD.



In fact I was referring to the people in the original polling. However, I dont expect most people to know those figures, any more than the bulk of us know exactly how much its costs per averge NHS patient per year, the percentage breakdown of spending by government department, the total trade imbalance between the UK and Sweden, the number of regional sorting offices, or how much the UK's spending deficit currently is (ministers certainly dont). We dont really have this sort of stuff in our head, which is perfectly understandable.

But neither should we base public policy on 'what we feel', without any understanding of what actually involved. So, what is the numbers of total UK TV ad spend or what are estimated costs of a change to subscription? Without that information, how can we judge if they are a good idea?



Who doesn't it give something to, and what bias?



In this market, not a lot, to be honest, but you might get a 32in from Argos, although its probably only going to have Freeview.



OK, so no BBC, so your left with the commercial channels (which of course your still ultimately paying for, possibly as much as 15p a day). Assuming you not going for Netflix or Prime (which is £80-96 a year, but you've got your broadband on top of that) or Sky (cheapest package 28.8p a day https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052166/PGSTART20/), you've saved some cash. But you've still got pay for a screen of some kind. And your going to have to like what they give you.

How is the BBC teaching 'kids rubbish through its skewed view of children's television'? My kids love CBBC, which regularly hoovers up most of the BAFTA's for kids TV. Yes, they try to watch the rubbish PopTV whenever they can, but its wall to wall ads. I have to admit that CBeebies/CBBC is often pretty educational for adults as well - I was watching Nina and the Neurons some years back with my kids, and suddenly realised that she was giving the best explanation of 'torque' that I'd ever heard.

Okay .

 

[KenThis]

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree. One of the problems about this subject is that its often about two different worldviews, and so often I've seen debates that just become reiteration of a position.

However, lets answer Dewi's points, where possible.



Firstly, BBC Worldwide's shareholders are the BBC (and to answer a later point, the BBC is no more likely to publicly publish the exact price paid for the rights to show Dr Who in a country than any of their commercial rivals - they are not complete idiots). Since you cannot test a path not yet taken, we have no idea exactly what would happen if the licence fee was abolished, but someone at the LSE did do some modelling http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyp...ing-the-bbc-licence-fee-benefit-the-consumer/, and concluded that:



The Reuters Institute has also done a study, which examined what would happen if the BBC disappeared (and therefore no licence fee at all) https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/What if there were no BBC TV_0.pdf
The conclusion was much the same - less choice, lower quality, and an economic impact in many areas where we do well, such as film production.

We do have an actual experiment to see what would happen if people were deprived of any BBC services for a period, and how they would feel about that http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ified-and-incredibly-good-value-10471116.html & https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...yers-dont-like-life-without-the-bbc-after-all(the original data is here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/pdf/lifewithoutthebbc.pdf ).

The biggest impact was on the people who had either not wanted to pay the licence fee at all, or wanted to pay a reduced rate. There were 48 households (out of 70) in this group, so it was weighed against people who supported the licence fee. After just nine days, two thirds of that group had changed their minds. In fact, the final result was something like 90% support for the licence fee from the 70 families as a whole. Of course thats just a single study, but its interesting that Sky customers continue to use BBC services in about the same amount as everyone else, even though they have paid a great deal more to have a much wider range of channels and original content. If someone can come up with more data, that would be great.

Personally, I couldn't give a stuff what happened to Clarkson either way - at the end of the day he got paid a lot more by Amazon, so he's hardly going to starve.



But the BBC does do its best to cover everyone, from deep sea diving (there was a series on BBC2 a year or two ago), historic stamps (I havn't seen one, but suggest it), to Pokemon cards (unlikely, but Antiques Roadshow might have a spot). And if they were just after ratings, why would they put Antiques Roadshow, Countryfile (opposite X Factor!) or Songs of Praise on BBC1 on a Sunday evening? And in answer to a later question, the BARB data isn't yet available for All Aboard! The Country Bus, which was on the 29th August, but almost a million might have watched it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...orkshire-dales-drives-nearly-a-million-view2/, ). Last years Canal Trip (' a two hour uninterrupted, unedited canal boat trip. That's it. No gimmicks or music' ) got half a million viewers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc...p-nearly-doubles-BBC-Fours-usual-viewers.html

So yes, the BBC does make and show stuff that has a very limited audience (or so you might think). And it does make stuff that lots of people like, often unexpectedly (like Bakeoff). And stuff that we just like (Poldark).

It also broadcasts stuff in Gaelic, Welsh, (the viewing numbers of which are very small), supports The Proms, produces kids TV (at one point some years ago they were the only source of terrestrial kids TV), and make documentaries about all sorts of stuff (The history of Britain's nuclear deterrent, illuminated manuscripts, The Great Fire of London, Mammoths, Wild Scotland, The Story of Muscials, The Congo, Music in the 18th Century, Vogue, Sellafield, and The Story of Indie are all on this week). Not all of it is great and not all of it is to my taste, but there is usually something for everyone.

The same goes for radio. Radio 2 is the single most popular radio station in the UK, and Radio 2 not far behind. Commercial stations have complained that the BBC does the same thing as they do https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2010/oct/26/radio-1-commercial-playlist . The BBC has argued otherwise, but thanks to a great website called Compare My Radio http://comparemyradio.com/ you can test that for yourself.

Put up something like Heart against Radio 2, and you'd think it would be much the same. When you compare the two http://comparemyradio.com/compare/BBC_Radio_2/Heart_London you discover that Radio 2 plays about 5 times as many different songs as Heart does, and they dont have that much cross over. Radio 1 was almost the same story. And Heart or Capital v BBC6 Music was stunning - there was practically no crossover at all, and 6 Music played a stunning mix of music (its the only station that played The Indigo Girls). Try it for yourself. What hits home is just how limited the commercial playlists are ('More music variety' my ****). And dont even start on The World Service, Radio 3, LW and Radio 4.

I have to admit I'm not sure what this means:



It would seem perverse most to make sure that a popular (perhaps expensively made) production should only be broadcast when most people could not/would not watch it. Most daytime TV is relatively cheap, because far fewer people are watching (although my Dad loves Cash in the Attic, and we dont dare even speak to him during Eggheads), although the BBC has made (expensive) quality period dramas like The Indian Doctor and Father Brown for the afternoon slot. But putting Poldark at 5pm, and then having a 2 hour programme about Brecht at 9pm on Sunday on BBC1 would seem strange to most. If it puts expensive popular programmes when nobody would watch them, wouldn't that be a waste of their money?



I merely read the comment as it was written. There are lots of old comedies that are repeated, and a vast number that are not, largely because they were not funny at the time, and even those that were have often not aged well. In the case of Alf Garnett, the language used simply would not be acceptable now, and indeed wasn't in the eighties, when the BBC made a follow-on series (if you think thats 'newspeak', thats up to you).

However, one of the key reasons its not on TV is because much of the first three series were wiped in the 1970's (so that they could reuse the tapes),much of it was shot in B & W, and much of whats survives isn't in great quality for broadcast. Network's licence for the DVD's seems to have expired, but some copies from their previous release are still around. But the BBC series from the 80's is available.

Comedy is a very personal thing, so whats funny and whats not is up to the individual.




Again, I read what was written.



Briainist over at UKFree.TV discussed the various scenario's if the BBC had to be funded from other sources, such as subscription https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052194/BBC_2017_The_problem_with_turning_Freeview_into_Pa , or advertising https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052166/PGSTART20/

The numbers weren't great for the BBC, or possibly the viewing public, but they were catastrophic for the commercial channels. The bulk of them would be bankrupt almost overnight. The only one to do well would be Sky.

I anticipate your pedanticism - they were of course sold off under the Major government!



There are certain places where its impossible to get any terrestrial signals, and some where its impossible to get a satellite signal either, (the occasional very unlucky person cannot get either) but this due to geography, and as far as possible, PSB stations use Light transmitters to 'fill in'. UkFree has had a fair number of complaints from people who have gotten used to suddenly having BBC4 HD (for the Olympics) and are upset that its gone again from their light transmitter. Looking at the Brighton Light transmitters , Trawden (Lancs) https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Trawden/PGSTART20/irt801579#b801579 and Dollar (Scotland) https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Dollar, because the first two just happened to have been mentioned recently, and I just randomly chose a Scottish one, you can see that you will get always get all the BBC channels (apart from BBC4 HD and possibly CBeebies HD), plus the bulk of the ITV and C4 stations, and C5/C5 HD.



In fact I was referring to the people in the original polling. However, I dont expect most people to know those figures, any more than the bulk of us know exactly how much its costs per averge NHS patient per year, the percentage breakdown of spending by government department, the total trade imbalance between the UK and Sweden, the number of regional sorting offices, or how much the UK's spending deficit currently is (ministers certainly dont). We dont really have this sort of stuff in our head, which is perfectly understandable.

But neither should we base public policy on 'what we feel', without any understanding of what actually involved. So, what is the numbers of total UK TV ad spend or what are estimated costs of a change to subscription? Without that information, how can we judge if they are a good idea?



Who doesn't it give something to, and what bias?



In this market, not a lot, to be honest, but you might get a 32in from Argos, although its probably only going to have Freeview.



OK, so no BBC, so your left with the commercial channels (which of course your still ultimately paying for, possibly as much as 15p a day). Assuming you not going for Netflix or Prime (which is £80-96 a year, but you've got your broadband on top of that) or Sky (cheapest package 28.8p a day https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052166/PGSTART20/), you've saved some cash. But you've still got pay for a screen of some kind. And your going to have to like what they give you.

How is the BBC teaching 'kids rubbish through its skewed view of children's television'? My kids love CBBC, which regularly hoovers up most of the BAFTA's for kids TV. Yes, they try to watch the rubbish PopTV whenever they can, but its wall to wall ads. I have to admit that CBeebies/CBBC is often pretty educational for adults as well - I was watching Nina and the Neurons some years back with my kids, and suddenly realised that she was giving the best explanation of 'torque' that I'd ever heard.

This........

 

[Fadcode]

This discussion is getting a bit like the BBC.................too many repeats
Its no good trying to talk down a persons point of view on the subject, without concrete evidence, and facts to support the argument

.....................OK, so no BBC, so your left with the commercial channels (which of course your still ultimately paying for, possibly as much as 15p a day)
I dont understand how if the BBC is no more, it would cost 15p per day to watch other channels(assuming no licence fee is no longer payable)

Since you cannot test a path not yet taken, we have no idea exactly what would happen if the licence fee was abolished, but someone at the LSE did do some modelling http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicypr...-the-consumer/, and concluded that:

If you dont know what would happen if the fee was abolished, it is hard to argue the point.

And it is nonsense to say the BBC do not chase ratings, last nights Crimewatch, which featured the Rape and Murder of a young woman, asked viewers to tune in next week to find out what happened, this is absolutely disgusting for the BBC, the BBC is now run by people of low morals, this is evident by the amount of swearing allowed, and I wont go into "Jobs for the Boys", and the many jaunts some of these so called comedians and actors have been on lately, I am not a follower of soaps, but oes anything nice happen in them, they all seem to follow each other with their murders, etc, are there no good writers left, or have they all left the BBC for fields anew.
And one last point, I personally think the programmes on the BBC are not as good as they used to be, both in content and value for money, now for the high salaries that are paid to presenters, and the hierarchy of the BBC, the standard should be a lot better, basically because they get the Government subsidy (the license fee).

 

[Old Bones]

.....................OK, so no BBC, so your left with the commercial channels (which of course your still ultimately paying for, possibly as much as 15p a day)
I dont understand how if the BBC is no more, it would cost 15p per day to watch other channels(assuming no licence fee is no longer payable)

I'm nicking this from UKFree.TV a couple of years back (cos its easy)

Commercial TV isn't free - someone pays to advertise, and that cost forms part of the money that you hand over for goods and services. If you pay British Gas, part of that payment goes to their marketing department to pay for those ads, plus those 'Britain's got X Factor is sponsored by British Gas' type things (although they only bring in about £44m to the broadcasters each year). And so on. If you add up all the commercial channels, but leave out UKTV (which isn't much anyway) and Sky, just watching Freeview your paying indirectly 10.6p a day, but thats probably a slight underestimate. I've seen figures quoting the average cost at anything from £180-240, but of course its difficult to be totally sure. What is sure is that every time you watch a programme with ads, its going to be costing someone, and thats likely to be you.

Sky has the neat trick of getting people to subscribe and and watch adverts, but thats unusual. The total ad revenue of all commercial channels? Again, Brianist supplied the figures a year or two ago, and since they havn't probably changed that much and I can't be bothered to look the newer ones up:

ITV plc (45.80%) £1,510,000,000
STV, UTV (est) (5.15%) £169,698,877
Channel 4 (16.40%) £540,698,690
Channel 5 (7.90%) £260,458,515
Sky sold* (15.60%) £514,323,144
Other (9.15%) £301,764,005

TOTAL (100.00%) £3,296,943,23

https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052191/PGSTART10/#pagebar

The total revenue of the BBC at that point was about £3.7bn (to put that in context, Sky's was about £6.4bn)

If you dont know what would happen if the fee was abolished, it is hard to argue the point.

But people can do calculations based on what they do know. If someone can point to other data driven scenario's, please link to them.

now for the high salaries that are paid to presenters, and the hierarchy of the BBC

The total cost of all front of camera presenters for the BBC for 2014/15 was about £148m https://ukfree.tv/bbccuts . Thats in the context of a total operating budget of c.£3.7bn. The pay of senior staff can be found on the BBC's website (including their expenses claims). Of course the pay of presenters and senior staff for ITV, C5 and Sky are not available for scrutiny. But ITV's CEO gets a lot more than his BBC counterpart, and Sky's does even better.

 

[dewi]

This discussion is getting a bit like the BBC.................too many repeats

Hence the reason for my one word reply earlier. Some people don't seem to understand the word 'choice' so we end up with Groundhog Day... the same argument repeated again and again with a different format, but ultimately saying the same thing.

 

[Corso]

Funny how evreyones moaning about an organisation that brought Ray mears, and David Attenborough, along with countless other alternative programme makers into the limelight....

 

[dewi]

I'm nicking this from UKFree.TV a couple of years back (cos its easy)

Commercial TV isn't free - someone pays to advertise, and that cost forms part of the money that you hand over for goods and services. If you pay British Gas, part of that payment goes to their marketing department to pay for those ads, plus those 'Britain's got X Factor is sponsored by British Gas' type things (although they only bring in about £44m to the broadcasters each year). And so on. If you add up all the commercial channels, but leave out UKTV (which isn't much anyway) and Sky, just watching Freeview your paying indirectly 10.6p a day, but thats probably a slight underestimate. I've seen figures quoting the average cost at anything from £180-240, but of course its difficult to be totally sure. What is sure is that every time you watch a programme with ads, its going to be costing someone, and thats likely to be you.

Sky has the neat trick of getting people to subscribe and and watch adverts, but thats unusual. The total ad revenue of all commercial channels? Again, Brianist supplied the figures a year or two ago, and since they havn't probably changed that much and I can't be bothered to look the newer ones up:



https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052191/PGSTART10/#pagebar

The total revenue of the BBC at that point was about £3.7bn (to put that in context, Sky's was about £6.4bn)



But people can do calculations based on what they do know. If someone can point to other data driven scenario's, please link to them.



The total cost of all front of camera presenters for the BBC for 2014/15 was about £148m https://ukfree.tv/bbccuts . Thats in the context of a total operating budget of c.£3.7bn. The pay of senior staff can be found on the BBC's website (including their expenses claims). Of course the pay of presenters and senior staff for ITV, C5 and Sky are not available for scrutiny. But ITV's CEO gets a lot more than his BBC counterpart, and Sky's does even better.

Your arguments about cost are disingenuous to say the least. The TV License is an enforcement yearly cost that must be paid or you risk going to prison. The companies who advertise on the commercial channels charge what the market allows, so regardless of their advertising budgets, the consumer will be paying the same. Granted, the companies earn more profits, but the copy and pasted comparison is a complete farce.

As for the comparisons with Sky, they are a commercial organisation that the consumer chooses to use... nobody is forced to subscribe to Sky, you won't go to prison if you don't pay for Sky, so the argument is irrelevant.

I will repeat the analogy. If you're forced to buy a singular brand of bread every day whether you eat or not, whether you like it or not, and if you don't buy it you could go to prison... that is not cricket. At all.

You have no concrete data to show any support for or against the television license fee. The BBC actively chase ratings whether you care to admit it or not, and you've all but pointed out the BBC bias yourself, yet still deny it exists.

Therefore, we truly have entered Groundhog Day. You'll continue to repeat the same arguments irrelevant of what anyone says, and I or others will continue to tell you the arguments don't hold water.

At least Bill Murray got to take out his frustration on an alarm clock and he learned the piano. All I have for my efforts is a veiled insult regarding my political beliefs and a couple of hours away from my leather work.

 

[dewi]

Funny how evreyones moaning about an organisation that brought Ray mears, and David Attenborough, along with countless other alternative programme makers into the limelight....

Sorry, but if they're worth their weight, they'd have appeared on our screens whether they were publicly funded or not.

And who is moaning? I'm putting forward a reasonable argument based on facts that the BBC is putting people in prison for no good reason. With regards to the iPlayer, which this thread was originally about, someone else put forward the argument about it appearing on the internet, their choice etc... so job done. As the iPlayer has been paired with a license fee, hence the resulting discussion.

 

[Corso]

Show me the evidence people are in jail because of it? I find it unlikely since the scroat who broke into my house got little more than a stern look from the JP....

There are far more worthwhile fights out there than complaining about the BBC on a Bushcraft forum.

 

[dewi]

Show me the evidence people are in jail because of it? I find it unlikely since the scroat who broke into my house got little more than a stern look from the JP....

There are far more worthwhile fights out there than complaining about the BBC on a Bushcraft forum.

Evidence wise, here is a link, its as easy as typing it into Google.

I completely agree that the current system where judges have called burglars brave and let them walk out of court with a fine is wrong, but that doesn't mean people are not going to prison over the TV license. That should give you more of reason to be annoyed. Someone invades your home and they evade a prison sentence, but someone who doesn't want to pay to watch a television channel does... is that fair?

As for worthwhile fights, I'm not fighting... I'm debating an issue. My reasons for debating it are a) it has directly effected my family b) it is an unfair system that in this day and age shouldn't exist c) I wasn't aware it would provoke hostility or insult by debating an issue in a reasonable manner.

Now, when does the huge rat with the goofy teeth arrive to tell us the weather? I want to know how long winter will be this year!

 

[KenThis]

Just thinking aloud, but for arguments sake.... Please excuse the oversimplification.

Imagine that the BBC license fee was an actual tax that people had to pay.
Whereas council tax is paid so that your local council is able to provide services, BBC 'tax' is paid in order to use a TV to watch or record live TV or to use the BBCiplayer app.
BBC 'tax' is used to provide television and radio content for everyone who wants to use it, it is ring fenced.
In a sense it is a little like vehicle tax in that you only have to pay the tax if you own a car and wish to drive it on the road, BBC tax is only paid if you wish to own a TV and watch or record content.

Now when we discuss the pros and cons of the BBC license fee it would be like discussing the pros and cons of any other tax.
We could say then that this BBC tax should be more like Vehicle tax in that different sized vehicles differ in the amount of tax liable, so those that don't watch the BBC should not pay as much etc.
Or we could argue why do we have to pay the same tax as someone else who watches/drives more than us.
We could argue that we shouldn't have to pay the tax because there are potholes on local roads or no programs you want to watch.
Etc etc.
It seems reasonable enough, and sure there may well be fairer more equitable ways to collect the BBC tax and probably better things to do with it.
But the thing is most taxation isn't fair. It's a system built of necessity to benefit society as a whole. Not the individual taxpayer.
The individual may not have children but their tax still pays for schools, may be a pacifist but they still pay for civil defence, they may never get sick or may die before they retire but their tax will still go towards hospitals and pensions.

Also when people are caught not paying tax (when they should) there are repercussions to help insure that everyone pays tax, again for the good of society.

Just as we as individuals don't have say in the tax we are liable to pay and what the money is subsequently used for.
Are we really so surprised that we have to pay a license fee to own/watch TV and that we also have no say in what it is used for?

 

[Corso]

Evidence wise, here is a link, its as easy as typing it into google

The Express is not exactly a primary source but how I read it the offence is refusal to pay the fine rather than the original offence, hardly the same thing.....

fighting,debating et al is pointless. Has it made you feel any better about it, I doubt it you'd be better contacting you MP.....

 

[Old Bones]

Funny how evreyones moaning about an organisation that brought Ray mears, and David Attenborough

True. The BBC got you Ray Mears, the commercial channels got you Bear Grylls...

Corso - i think your probably a bit kind about the Express. I'm not sure its even much of a newspaper (and far too tough to use as toilet paper), never mind as a source of information.

KenThis - totally agree and wonderfully put. The fact is that the government could have a tax if you had a TV, and just keep all the cash. Lots of taxes work that way. And taxes (and life isn't fair) - I'm sure (in fact I know) there are people out there outraged that part of their taxes go towards the NHS, when they want the 'choice' of whether to pay for healthcare, and who will provide it. Same with schools. In theory they might have a point - in practice they are not seeing the wood for the trees.

And as for the idea of voting for what the BBC does or does not do, there is a sort of example when UKFree asked how the BBC would save an estimated £613m after the government dumped the cost of pensioners licences on the BBC. People got to suggest stuff, except of course everyone wanted to get shot of the stuff they didn't like or didn't use. Which are of course all different. https://ukfree.tv/bbccuts/PGSTART0/#pagebar

Choice is overated, has costs (Ronald Coarse won a Nobel prize for shows transaction costs) is often illusionry. For instance, all those parents who have had to shell out for new school uniform this week (like me) in theory have choices, but one way or another, we are going have to get what the school says. And to put the licence fee into context, we spent about half that on new uniform and shoes and got off quite lightly. In context of what a family spends, its not that big a deal, and its not what most of us worry about.

Your arguments about cost are disingenuous to say the least. The TV License is an enforcement yearly cost that must be paid or you risk going to prison. The companies who advertise on the commercial channels charge what the market allows, so regardless of their advertising budgets, the consumer will be paying the same. Granted, the companies earn more profits, but the copy and pasted comparison is a complete farce.

Firstly, you have to be totally dappy to go to prison over the licence fee. Just a total idiot. And that link to the Express that you Googled (usual Express BTW - overblown rhetoric like 'breathtaking scale of the inequality' and 'bombshell', plus the usual scary picture of Farage) misses out several key bits of information. Firstly, there are about 26.5m households in the UK, and only 36 people went to jail for non payment last year, so thats a tiny proportion. Next, the number of people who watch TV in Scotland is about the same as in Yorkshire (which would sound a lot less dramatic), so they are going to have far fewer people possibly not going to jail anyway. But the key reason for the change (buried in the actual story so that people were hyperventaliating from the headline was that:

The disparity has been created because Scotland recently changed its laws to state that nobody can be jailed for failing to pay a fine of less than £500 - well above the threshold usually imposed for TV licence evasion. As a result very few prosecutions now reach court, with the majority of the almost 13,000 Scots punished over the last five years facing non-court fines instead.

And as the person from TV Licencing put it:

A spokesman for TV Licensing added: “We enforce the law in Scotland by taking a statement from those who evade, as we do in the rest of the UK. "Subject to the usual evidential and public interest tests, cases are then sent for prosecution to the Procurator-Fiscal who decides how cases are dealt with. "In the vast majority of cases, the PF levies a fixed penalty by way of an out-of-court disposal."

So while they still go to court, they just have even less chance to go to jail, but still pay fines.

As to the 'The companies who advertise on the commercial channels charge what the market allows, so regardless of their advertising budgets, the consumer will be paying the same.', if the companies did not advertise (and thus incur that cost), wouldn't that price be cheaper? One way or another, we are paying for stuff, and from my point of view, if I'm paying, what gets me the best value? For £145.50 a year, I get lots of TV/Radio channels with a variety of good quality programming, with no adverts, plus I can watch a lot of other channels as well. I can use whatever equipment I like and use whatever services I want. Sounds like a good deal to me.

You have no concrete data to show any support for or against the television license fee. The BBC actively chase ratings whether you care to admit it or not, and you've all but pointed out the BBC bias yourself, yet still deny it exists.

I linked to an academic study, a extensive study undertaken by an institute sponsored by Reuters, and an actual experiment, where you can read the original data. If you have concrete evidence that says the opposite, show us. Does the BBC like decent ratings? Of course, since making expensive programmes that nobody watches is both disheartening professionally and financially wasteful. Is that its only aim? Evidently not, looking at much of its output. And I have no idea what you mean by 'biases'.

Therefore, we truly have entered Groundhog Day. You'll continue to repeat the same arguments irrelevant of what anyone says, and I or others will continue to tell you the arguments don't hold water.

I'll agree that we've entered Groundhog Day, but at least I cite data. However, as I said earlier, its reached the point where nobody is going to budge, so there it is. Perhaps I will spend the time instead catching up on the enjoyable programme about NY that was on last night, with the lovely Anita Rani!

 

[Klenchblaize]

Apologies but I tried to read all contributions to see if the following has been mentioned but lost the will so here goes anyway and with an acknowledgment it isn’t 100% relevant to the question!

Were the Licence fee 5 times the current rate I would still consider it incredible value and even if all I could listen to was BBC Radio. Perhaps it’s just me and allied to being a 60’s child given of less than ideal schooling but I refuse to be embarrassed when I tell you my eyes moisten whenever I consider the person I might be had it not been for the ‘Secondary Education’ that the BBC, and inparticular Radio 4, afforded this devotee of John Reith’s creation.

In a time of internet when you can Google almost anything, you may consider the educational importance of the BBC is significantly lessened but upon further reflection there is an argument that we need an unbiased, enthusiastic and knowledgeable BBC more than ever to bring a little sanity to what at times can feel like information, opinion and self-gratification overload!

Call me what you will but I don’t care how the BBC is funded just so long as it is and generously so with every safety mechanism put in place to ensure independence.

God bless Aunty!
:You_Rock_


K

 

[Macaroon]

Very well put, Klenchblaize; I too had to leave school to get an education and much of it came through the wireless, still does, as a matter of fact. Go live anywhere else for a couple of years and you soon realise what we have here.......

Be careful what you wish for!

 

[dewi]

True. The BBC got you Ray Mears, the commercial channels got you Bear Grylls...

Corso - i think your probably a bit kind about the Express. I'm not sure its even much of a newspaper (and far too tough to use as toilet paper), never mind as a source of information.

KenThis - totally agree and wonderfully put. The fact is that the government could have a tax if you had a TV, and just keep all the cash. Lots of taxes work that way. And taxes (and life isn't fair) - I'm sure (in fact I know) there are people out there outraged that part of their taxes go towards the NHS, when they want the 'choice' of whether to pay for healthcare, and who will provide it. Same with schools. In theory they might have a point - in practice they are not seeing the wood for the trees.

And as for the idea of voting for what the BBC does or does not do, there is a sort of example when UKFree asked how the BBC would save an estimated £613m after the government dumped the cost of pensioners licences on the BBC. People got to suggest stuff, except of course everyone wanted to get shot of the stuff they didn't like or didn't use. Which are of course all different. https://ukfree.tv/bbccuts/PGSTART0/#pagebar

Choice is overated, has costs (Ronald Coarse won a Nobel prize for shows transaction costs) is often illusionry. For instance, all those parents who have had to shell out for new school uniform this week (like me) in theory have choices, but one way or another, we are going have to get what the school says. And to put the licence fee into context, we spent about half that on new uniform and shoes and got off quite lightly. In context of what a family spends, its not that big a deal, and its not what most of us worry about.



Firstly, you have to be totally dappy to go to prison over the licence fee. Just a total idiot. And that link to the Express that you Googled (usual Express BTW - overblown rhetoric like 'breathtaking scale of the inequality' and 'bombshell', plus the usual scary picture of Farage) misses out several key bits of information. Firstly, there are about 26.5m households in the UK, and only 36 people went to jail for non payment last year, so thats a tiny proportion. Next, the number of people who watch TV in Scotland is about the same as in Yorkshire (which would sound a lot less dramatic), so they are going to have far fewer people possibly not going to jail anyway. But the key reason for the change (buried in the actual story so that people were hyperventaliating from the headline was that:



And as the person from TV Licencing put it:


So while they still go to court, they just have even less chance to go to jail, but still pay fines.

As to the 'The companies who advertise on the commercial channels charge what the market allows, so regardless of their advertising budgets, the consumer will be paying the same.', if the companies did not advertise (and thus incur that cost), wouldn't that price be cheaper? One way or another, we are paying for stuff, and from my point of view, if I'm paying, what gets me the best value? For £145.50 a year, I get lots of TV/Radio channels with a variety of good quality programming, with no adverts, plus I can watch a lot of other channels as well. I can use whatever equipment I like and use whatever services I want. Sounds like a good deal to me.



I linked to an academic study, a extensive study undertaken by an institute sponsored by Reuters, and an actual experiment, where you can read the original data. If you have concrete evidence that says the opposite, show us. Does the BBC like decent ratings? Of course, since making expensive programmes that nobody watches is both disheartening professionally and financially wasteful. Is that its only aim? Evidently not, looking at much of its output. And I have no idea what you mean by 'biases'.



I'll agree that we've entered Groundhog Day, but at least I cite data. However, as I said earlier, its reached the point where nobody is going to budge, so there it is. Perhaps I will spend the time instead catching up on the enjoyable programme about NY that was on last night, with the lovely Anita Rani!

Unbelievable! I click the first link on Google relating to people imprisoned over the TV License, and you want to make it an issue because you dislike the newspaper or it's narrative?!

Yes Old Bones, you've included lots of links that don't prove (or disprove) anything, so saying 'at least I cite data' is about as relevant as me saying 'At least I mention Bill Murray to qualify my reference to Groundhog Day'

Sorry, but I can't take this seriously any more... apparently only the really stupid people go to prison (or as the rest of us call them, the impoverished) and what Old Bones thinks is good value for him is now the rule for the rest of the population, regardless of anyone elses opinion. And that's all relevant to why we have a TV license and why its been extended to the iPlayer.

Side note, I refer to the TV license as a tax, and Old Bones tells me I'm wrong, its not a tax. Ken makes a similar argument to mine, all of a sudden Old Bones 'totally agrees and wonderfully put'... as I say, I can't take this seriously any more.

 

[dewi]

The Express is not exactly a primary source but how I read it the offence is refusal to pay the fine rather than the original offence, hardly the same thing.....

fighting,debating et al is pointless. Has it made you feel any better about it, I doubt it you'd be better contacting you MP.....

Blimey, lesson learned here, never link to newspapers. I wasn't aware I had to ignore certain news outlets... but I am aware now. Won't happen again.

If fighting/debating or however you want to frame it that suits your point is pointless, why have a discussion forum in the first instance? Are you intending on advising Old Bones as well, or is your advice just reserved for the people you disagree with?

Any discussion can change into a debate just by two people having different views, and that seems perfectly acceptable to most, but for some reason my involvement is wrong and I shouldn't continue to discuss it here, instead contact an MP? How bizarre... but okay... I presume if there are any other discussions that include a disagreement, you'll be stepping in? Look forward to seeing that.

What's this got to do with the TV license again?

 

[rik_uk3]

I thought you only went to prison if you refused to pay the fine or make an offer to pay it off in instalments.

I'd happily pay £500 a year for a TVL because for me its fantastic value, others hate it... each to their own, not worth falling out over.

 

[Fraxinus]

When I clicked on BBC iPlayer the other day a little pop up screen asked "Do you have a TV licence" I clicked yes. Because we do, although most of the BBC programmes I watch are on iPlayer as they tend to clash with herself's other tv fetishes.
Every time since then when logging into the BBC I have not even been asked.....
How do they know I am being honest?
If they are monitoring all my internet activity and have aquired my home address from my I.P. then surely several infringements of our privacy have been made due to being law abiding folks or the whole concept of them closing the loophole is sheer fiction just like the old tv detector vans turned out to be.
They have known for a while this change in the law was coming but failed to implement a protocol that is standard on many other subscription based on-line media formats. A Pin Number!
The cynic in me would ask... "Is this so that they can prosecute non licence fee payers and make more money?"

Rob.