Home Home, Law & Money
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

TV License

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you don't think the loss of .... CBeebies (about the only vaguely educational kids tv around) would be a shame? I haven't come across any comercial channel that puts out stuff like they do.

    In fact ITV is stopping all of its kids TV and is just going to import it from elsewhere because now they cant show junk food ads they cant afford to run the shows.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you don't think the loss of BBC3 (which is where comedy like Little Britain got it's first tv airing), BBC4, BBC New 24, CBeebies (about the only vaguely educational kids tv around) would be a shame?

    No, I don't think it would be a shame at all.

    BBC3 seems to show nothing but repeats of Doctor Who and "comedy" that isn't good enough to be shown on another channel. BBC4 seems to show nothing but repeats of the Alan Clark Diaries.
    Commercial channels have to please their advertisers, so can't take risks with new stuff, unlike the BBC which can.

    That's not quite true- commercial channels have to please their viewers in order to attract advertisers.

    I'd hardly say channel four were negative and safe in their programming, and FilmFour did more for the British film industry in ten years than the BBC did in fifty.
    Have you ever used the BBC website? BBC News is the homepage of many because of the relatively unbiased reporting it provides.

    It is the homepage of many because it doesn't have to fund itself through adverts or subscriptions.

    Because it doesn't have to worry about making money, it loses a vast fortune on pointlessness which is often done to a higher standard in the commercial sector. Interestingly the BBC have also seen fit to remove the teenage boys advice section from the website. So there goes the argument that not having to worry about loss means the service is broader.

    I may grant Coast to you, Aladdin, but as for the comedy- wtf? Drop the Dead Donkey wasn't on the BBC, nor was Nightingales, and one of the biggest BBC comedy successes was actually stolen from ITV. And the reason why most radio talent is on the BBC is because the BBC have a monopoly over national frequencies, and won't allow competitors (which is why Virgin is stuck on AM and stations like Galaxy had to buy out local stations to get a presence).

    Apart from Doctor Who I honestly can't remember the last quality programme to come out of the BBC. Coast was good, but that's about it.

    My problems with the BBC stem from the fact that they accountable to nobody. They take a large amount of money from me in criminally-enforcable taxation, and do not provide me with any way of making them account for their actions. I cannot vote out the DG or the board, I cannot veto the appointment of piss-stains like Norton and Davidson, and I cannot refuse to pay because I will be sent to prison.

    If the BBC is so good then 60 million people will happily pay for their services, and nothing will change. If the BBC isn't that good then it has no right to survive on the public purse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You do have a choice, you don't have to have a tv with an aerial connection. Problem solved. Don't watch tv, don't pay. IIRC not all the license fee funds the BBC, a portion of it is used for the licensing agency.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You do have a choice, you don't have to have a tv with an aerial connection. Problem solved. Don't watch tv, don't pay. IIRC not all the license fee funds the BBC, a portion of it is used for the licensing agency.
    :lol: Not all of it is used to fund the BBC, some of it is used to fund the company that makes sure you pay it. Fucking hell!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You do have a choice, you don't have to have a tv with an aerial connection. Problem solved. Don't watch tv, don't pay. IIRC not all the license fee funds the BBC, a portion of it is used for the licensing agency.

    So not only do I get to pay for the BBC, I get to pay for the henchmen the BBC employs to do its dirty work for it.

    That isn't a choice at all, I have to pay the BBC by law in order to watch its commercial competitors. How's that a choice?

    Would you be happy if you had to pay Tesco £10 every time you wanted to shop at the corner shop? Would you be happy if you had to pay Odeon £10 every time you wanted to watch a film at the local independent cinema? Would you be happy if you were put in prison for not paying this?

    Get the BBC to fund itself ethically and I will support it, hell, I might even buy a subscription. But the point is that if it cannot survive commercially on its own two feet then it should die. I'm sure if its that good everyone will willingly pay the fee, maybe even a bit more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I cancelled my TV licence 1 month ago because I hadn't watched TV for a couple of months prior.

    I told them this and they said it was ok, and recommended I deliberately block the ariel from being used in my flat, I said I wouldn't incase I wished to sell and that would reduce the value. They accepted that I would not watch it, and cancelled my licence (just a phone call).

    I then subscribed to Telewest, and decided that now I have a multitude of new channels, I need the licence back, so I phoned them, and got it renewed, effective as of today, none of this backdating the beginning of the month lark.

    Anyways, long story short - if you're nice to them, and honest, they'll be nice to you, and sort things swiftly.

    hmm I don't know if there was actually a point to this post, but I missed you guys :P

    :lol: :sick:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It won't have been renewen effective today, it will have been renewed as if it started on 1st October, when you get your license through you will see that it expires on 30th September rather than 12 October.

    By the licensing agency I meant the airwaves one rather than the TV license people. I can't for the life of me remember their name at the moment but they are the equivalent of OFCOM or OFWAT but for any kind of radio broadcasting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You do have a choice, you don't have to have a tv with an aerial connection. Problem solved. Don't watch tv, don't pay.
    but what if someone wants to watch tv.. but NOT the bbc?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lipsy wrote:
    but what if someone wants to watch tv.. but NOT the bbc?

    EXACTLY. It's ludicrous that you have to pay your license even if you don't watch BBC channels.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Like many things in life, at the end of the day no system is fair and you can take your choice. I have to pay tax for all sorts of things I will never use and don't agree with. Ranting on here really isn't going to do you much good. If you care that much do something proactive!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Apart from Doctor Who I honestly can't remember the last quality programme to come out of the BBC. Coast was good, but that's about it.

    HIGNFY (back tonight people :yippe: ), Power of Nightmares, Radio 4 comedies... I could go on but I can't be arsed to get into a slanging match.

    TBH I am waiting for a UK commercial station to come up with anything which matches any of those programmes..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HIGNFY (back tonight people :yippe: ), Power of Nightmares, Radio 4 comedies... I could go on but I can't be arsed to get into a slanging match.

    TBH I am waiting for a UK commercial station to come up with anything which matches any of those programmes..
    You might be in for a long wait.

    Has anyone mentioned QI yet?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We've already mentioned plenty of quality, original, niche programmes from commercial channels, not to mention the fact that every decent film in the past ten years has been funded commercially, not by the BBC. If quality of progammes is your argument, then you have no argument. Not that it in any way justifies the licence fee anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We've already mentioned plenty of quality, original, niche programmes from commercial channels, not to mention the fact that every decent film in the past ten years has been funded commercially, not by the BBC. If quality of progammes is your argument, then you have no argument. Not that it in any way justifies the licence fee anyway.
    what he said :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In terms of delicious and barbed sarcasm and satire, I'd say Drop the Dead Donkey was as good as HIGNFY. I think QI is overrated; Whose Line is it Anyway? was infinitely funnier.

    The quality (or otherwise) of the BBC does not justify the license fee, and does not justify imprisoning people for watching ITV without a license. As I've said, if the BBC is so fantastically amazingly good it will get 50 million people to pay the fee- it may even get some of those people to pay more than they do now. If it isn't that good then people won't watch it, and it will die.

    If it's good enough to survive commercially it will survive commercially; if it isn't good enough to survive it should not be kept alive on the public teat. Either way the license fee should be abolished, and the BBC should have to survive using commercial principles.

    As explained, the reason why all the radio talent is on the BBC is because the BBC have a monopoly on the radio. They are the only national station; they use their governmental clout to kill competitors. Virgin still being on AM because of the BBC is nothing short of a national disgrace. The only BBC station that has a direct commercial competitor is Radio 3, and I'd say that Classic FM do it better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    As explained, the reason why all the radio talent is on the BBC is because the BBC have a monopoly on the radio. They are the only national station; they use their governmental clout to kill competitors. Virgin still being on AM because of the BBC is nothing short of a national disgrace. The only BBC station that has a direct commercial competitor is Radio 3, and I'd say that Classic FM do it better.
    all the DJs start on local radio anyway. i used to listen to JK and Joel on key103 manchester before they moved to radio1.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The quality (or otherwise) of the BBC does not justify the license fee, and does not justify imprisoning people for watching ITV without a license. As I've said, if the BBC is so fantastically amazingly good it will get 50 million people to pay the fee- it may even get some of those people to pay more than they do now. If it isn't that good then people won't watch it, and it will die.

    If it's good enough to survive commercially it will survive commercially; if it isn't good enough to survive it should not be kept alive on the public teat. Either way the license fee should be abolished, and the BBC should have to survive using commercial principles.
    But it's not about ratings is it? It's about quality. It's about preserving standards. It's about cultural heritage.

    If everything is reduced to commercial success we will end up with the lowest common demoniator, and with a cultural wasteland not worth thinking about. Just as you wouldn't want to privatise all museums or demand they sell off their masterpieces because not that many people go to see them and it costs the taxpayer money to keep them running, you don't want to sell off the BBC and let it just become another commercial, ratings-driven channel. God forbid.

    I'm sorry. It's about the greater good and about the cultural wealth of the nation. And until someone comes up with a better way of preserving it, the licence fee should stay.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But it's not about ratings is it? It's about quality. It's about preserving standards. It's about cultural heritage.

    If everything is reduced to commercial success we will end up with the lowest common demoniator, and with a cultural wasteland not worth thinking about. Just as you wouldn't want to privatise all museums or demand they sell off their masterpieces because not that many people go to see them and it costs the taxpayer money to keep them running, you don't want to sell off the BBC and let it just become another commercial, ratings-driven channel. God forbid.

    I'm sorry. It's about the greater good and about the cultural wealth of the nation. And until someone comes up with a better way of preserving it, the licence fee should stay.
    What a load of bollocks. Everything you have just said has been proved wrong in America. They don't use taxpayers money to make TV programmes, and yet they have some of the best, most culturally relevant, and most successful programmes in history. Not just in terms of ratings. How many people buy quality programmes on, like The West Wing, The Soprano's and Curb Your Enthusiasm on DVD as well?

    And tell me why the UK still has a film industry? It's certainly nothing to do with the BBC funding films. And how come British music is still some of the most popular in the world, despite it being commercially funded? How many of the world's most critically acclaimed musicians have been British? Surely if your argument had any weight, these forms of art would be huge failures in this country too?

    Maybe you could give me just one example of something the BBC has done to "preserve our cultural wealth" that independent television would've failed to do? Because frankly so far, your argument comes down to you wanting other people to pay for the programmes that you like to watch.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a load of bollocks. Everything you have just said has been proved wrong in America. They don't use taxpayers money to make TV programmes, and yet they have some of the best, most culturally relevant, and most successful programmes in history. Not just in terms of ratings. How many people buy quality programmes on, like The West Wing, The Soprano's and Curb Your Enthusiasm on DVD as well?
    Have you ever watched television in America?

    I recommend you do so, because I can assure you TV there is so dismal it makes Sky 1 look high brow.

    Most of the dramas you have mentioned are done by studios on commission. It has nothing to do with the TV channels there, and in any case they comprise a very small proportion indeed of the channel's output- most of it is pure dross.
    Maybe you could give me just one example of something the BBC has done to "preserve our cultural wealth" that independent television would've failed to do? Because frankly so far, your argument comes down to you wanting other people to pay for the programmes that you like to watch.
    Comedy. Drama. Nature. Radio 4. Not one, but four examples. And each one with dozens of examples themselves.

    It is thanks to the BBC and its ability to finance and support fringe comedians and programmes that hundreds of talented artists have become successful. It is thanks to BBC radio and the likes of the greatly missed John Peel that hundreds of talented musicians made it.

    But I guess it would have to take the loss of the BBC in its current format for some to realise what the country would miss.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Most of the dramas you have mentioned are done by studios on commission. It has nothing to do with the TV channels there, and in any case they comprise a very small proportion indeed of the channel's output- most of it is pure dross.
    Same as the BBC then. Most of what the BBC, and any other channel in the world, produces is generally pretty average. At any one time, I'd say there are only a few programmes on any channel that I would go out of my way to watch.
    Aladdin wrote:
    Comedy. Drama. Nature. Radio 4. Not one, but four examples. And each one with dozens of examples themselves.
    That's not an example. That's just you naming four genres of entertainment, all of which exist outside of the BBC. Other than perhaps Radio 4. But when you have a monopoly of the radio frequencies, you're going to be the most successful channel.
    Aladdin wrote:
    It is thanks to the BBC and its ability to finance and support fringe comedians and programmes that hundreds of talented artists have become successful. It is thanks to BBC radio and the likes of the greatly missed John Peel that hundreds of talented musicians made it.
    Well of course it's thanks to the BBC that hundreds of talented artists have been recognised. When you have two out of five (or four, or three) channels for most of the 20th century, you're bound to have a fair chunk of the talent. What you've failed to realise however, is that this would've happened whether or not the BBC was commercial, as examples in America and on Channel 4 in particular have proved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Er, no, it wouldn't have happened. That's the whole point. Because the BBC has always had the luxury of a second TV channel and several radio channels, and because ratings are only secondary due to the way it is financed, the BBC has been capable of giving a platform and nationwide exposure to alternative and fringe comedians, artists and musicians. None of which would have been touched by a commercial, ratings-driven station.

    If you think the likes of Channel 4, or even more so any of the American stations would give airtime to risky, alternative newcomers you've got to think again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    BBC news is probably the best electronic newsgathering group in the world. i can't think of anything which comes close.

    But for the rest you can't compare the best of BBc to the worst of the US and say BBC is better. You need to compare the best with the best on BBC we have Doctor Who and er, thats it (OK and some average stuff like the Amazing Mrs Pritchard). Comedy QI isn't as funny as it thinks it is and HIGNFY is well past its prime and is an example of the BBC being unable to think of anything new. And that dancing crap they show on Saturday evening is as dire as anything the US has ever produced and as for Robin Hood...

    The US has got The Shield, CSI, Lost, Battlestar Galitica, ER and loads more

    Even some of BBC past quality dramas such as Band of Brothers and Rome were part funded by HBO - so they're as much American as British.

    Now I don't want to get rid of the BBC, but it needs to slim down. Does it honestly need BBC 3 and 4, and Cbeebies and a local radio station for every county. If it wants us to keep paying the licence fee it has to do less, but do it better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Have you ever watched television in America?

    I recommend you do so, because I can assure you TV there is so dismal it makes Sky 1 look high brow.

    I'm sure some of it is, just like some of the BBC's output is utter dross.

    But some of the funniest comedy has come out of the US, and indeed out of Fox- The Simpsons, Frasier, Cheers to name a few.

    And before we wank on too much about the BBC's search for new comedy, did you watch Little Miss Jocelyn? It was about as funny as watching your wife getting executed.

    And before we go on too much about programmes being outsourced, do you know who makes HIGNFY? Hint: It isn't the BBC.
    It is thanks to BBC radio and the likes of the greatly missed John Peel that hundreds of talented musicians made it.

    You mean the same BBC that got rid of the Evening Session, replacing it with yet more fucking hiphop?

    Most of what John Peel played was shit, anyway.
    cultural wealth

    Sorry, what "cultural wealth", and what "heritage"?

    This is a corporation that threw away the tapes to much of their output, and then celebrated when some old man found them in the shed and handed them back 25 years later. Hancock, Steptoe, Dad's Army- all thrown away. So much for preservation.

    This is a corporation that created Eldorado, that created Love Thy Neighbour, that created Are You Being Served? This is a corporation that gave us an entire series of "Britain's Worst...", including highlights as the worst toilet, the worst high street, and the worst city. This is a corporation that handed out multi-million contracts to Roslin, Davidson, Berry, Robinson, Norton, without having a fucking clue what to do with them. This is a corporation that has just paid a large amount of money to do the auditions for Andrew cunting Lloyd-Webber. This is a corporation that allowed itself to be run by John cunting Birt for a decade.

    I feel the "culture". As for the wealth, well that's getting spunked away into the pockets of racists, bigots and talentless Irish homosexuals.

    So, where were we? The BBC provides an invaluable service? It does if your name's Norton or Birt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Er, no, it wouldn't have happened. That's the whole point. Because the BBC has always had the luxury of a second TV channel and several radio channels, and because ratings are only secondary due to the way it is financed, the BBC has been capable of giving a platform and nationwide exposure to alternative and fringe comedians, artists and musicians. None of which would have been touched by a commercial, ratings-driven station.

    If you think the likes of Channel 4, or even more so any of the American stations would give airtime to risky, alternative newcomers you've got to think again.
    Prove it. Because the last time I looked, a programme like Queer as Folk is the sort of thing the BBC would be scared shitless to put the money that Channel 4 put into it. A film like Trainspotting is the sort of thing the BBC would be scared shitless to put money into. If you were right, then America would've had the same comedians and writers for the past 50 years. You haven't give a single credible example that hasn't been thrown back into your face with an equivalent from commercial television. And you still haven't told us how America gives all this great new writing talent opportunities, that surely only publicly funded organisations like the BBC could afford to give.

    Oh and speaking of culture, on which channel does the national league of our national game currently reside? Oh that'd be right, Sky. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We have a national game?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We have a national game?
    Apparently. If you believe all this 'cultural wealth' crap, anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We have a national game?

    Tiddlywinks
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah, but do you tiddle your wink or wink your tiddle ? :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I'm sure some of it is, just like some of the BBC's output is utter dross.
    I put it to you that for every minute of dross shown on the BBC there are at least 5 times more dross shown everywhere else- and in the case of America, 10-20 times more.
    But some of the funniest comedy has come out of the US, and indeed out of Fox- The Simpsons, Frasier, Cheers to name a few.
    That has little to do with the channels themselves though does it?
    And before we wank on too much about the BBC's search for new comedy, did you watch Little Miss Jocelyn? It was about as funny as watching your wife getting executed.
    Well done. Pick an example you don't like and pretend their whole output is like that.
    And before we go on too much about programmes being outsourced, do you know who makes HIGNFY? Hint: It isn't the BBC.
    Yes I know. It's Hat Trick Productions.

    The BBC still produces more quality programmes, and gives platform to more alternative and minority artists, comedians and musicians than any other broadcaster in the world. Fact. Period.


    You mean the same BBC that got rid of the Evening Session, replacing it with yet more fucking hiphop?

    Most of what John Peel played was shit, anyway.
    Really? I feel you are in a minority there.

    But then again you are also in a minority in your vicious hatred of the corporation.


    Sorry, what "cultural wealth", and what "heritage"?

    This is a corporation that threw away the tapes to much of their output, and then celebrated when some old man found them in the shed and handed them back 25 years later. Hancock, Steptoe, Dad's Army- all thrown away. So much for preservation.

    This is a corporation that created Eldorado, that created Love Thy Neighbour, that created Are You Being Served? This is a corporation that gave us an entire series of "Britain's Worst...", including highlights as the worst toilet, the worst high street, and the worst city. This is a corporation that handed out multi-million contracts to Roslin, Davidson, Berry, Robinson, Norton, without having a fucking clue what to do with them. This is a corporation that has just paid a large amount of money to do the auditions for Andrew cunting Lloyd-Webber. This is a corporation that allowed itself to be run by John cunting Birt for a decade.
    Judging by the ratings of some of those people I think the BBC knew what to do with them.

    Remember it's part of their charter to provide popular programmes as well as high quality ones. If it didn't, you'd be the first one here trying to bring down the BBC on the basis that it only caters for Guardianistas and that nobody watches it.

    Damn if they do, damn if they don't eh?
    I feel the "culture". As for the wealth, well that's getting spunked away into the pockets of racists, bigots and talentless Irish homosexuals.
    Oh do fuck off and grow up Kermit for fuck's sake. You should be above that fucking shit :rolleyes:
    So, where were we? The BBC provides an invaluable service? It does if your name's Norton or Birt.
    Millions disagree with you Kermit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Millions disagree with you Kermit.
    Let them pay for it then. Television isn't a fucking service, it's a luxury, it's entertainment. Maybe we should start subsidising trips to Alton Towers as well. (:chin: I think I'm on to something there)
Sign In or Register to comment.