BBC Golden Goodbyes

[bitchstewie]

DonkeyApple said:

Because the fee is for watching tv as it is broadcast. As such, with modern on demand and playback services you have no need to watch tv as it is broadcast meaning that it boils down to choice.

But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.

The general reason why so many people are angry is down to the fact that they are buying a license without ever bothering to read what it is actually for.

Tbh I agree that the cost is relatively low. A bit like with most taxes though (as it is essentially a tax) I'd rather it be used for its intended purpose than paying off people.

I think that's the point really, whenever the BBC comes up it doesn't seem to be people saying 'The BBC make st programs", it's always something political or management related such as seeming political bias or as on this thread people getting paid a lot of our money for no obviously good reason.

[DonkeyApple]

bhstewie said:

DonkeyApple said:

Because the fee is for watching tv as it is broadcast. As such, with modern on demand and playback services you have no need to watch tv as it is broadcast meaning that it boils down to choice.

But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.

The general reason why so many people are angry is down to the fact that they are buying a license without ever bothering to read what it is actually for.

Tbh I agree that the cost is relatively low. A bit like with most taxes though (as it is essentially a tax) I'd rather it be used for its intended purpose than paying off people.

I think that's the point really, whenever the BBC comes up it doesn't seem to be people saying 'The BBC make st programs", it's always something political or management related such as seeming political bias or as on this thread people getting paid a lot of our money for no obviously good reason.

I tend to agree but it's not a lot different to Sky subscribers or Sun readers paying for the playoffs to all those victims. It's called business.

I think it is also worth looking at who it is who has left the BBC and why they were paid off and not fired? Arguably because they are disposing of non guilty people to assuage the public?

[bitchstewie]

DonkeyApple said:

I tend to agree but it's not a lot different to Sky subscribers or Sun readers paying for the playoffs to all those victims. It's called business.

I think it is also worth looking at who it is who has left the BBC and why they were paid off and not fired? Arguably because they are disposing of non guilty people to assuage the public?

But again, and sorry to keep saying it but I don't get why you'd bring commercial businesses into it, those Sky subscribers (of which I am one) or Sun readers (I'm not one) have a choice - they can vote with their feet if they don't like the offering.

Whilst technically you could choose not to fund the BBC you're pretty much talking lifestyle change or a criminal record to avoid doing so rather than "I don't like what Murdoch does so I think I'll buy The Independent today".

Don't forget as well, 200 managers, 3 years and that's what we know of - this isn't a knee jerk bunch of firings.

[DonkeyApple]

Mojocvh said:

<devils advocate mode on>

So what about an "steerable" sat system in which UK FTA/V transponders are not in the receivers memory?

<and off>

The key is to be able to demonstrably show that you are not accessing the services for which the TV License is required.

On a property we have I have taken down the aerial and removed the internal sockets. The property also has no phone line or wifi so is easy to prove compliance. On another we do have wifi but it is a question of whether you can prove you have not been using it to access live terrestrial broadcasts.

[London424]

DonkeyApple said:

It's written on the paper that every license holder purchases.

The License Fee is to allow you to watch television and radio as it is broadcast or streamed. So this is for all channels, stations. You are paying to watch tv.

That is what the license is. So you need it to watch BBC channels or any other commercial content.

Now, separately, the money raised is used in part (not all) to fund a nationalised broadcasting service.

It is important to note that without this service the commercial stations would be more heavily regulated in regards to what content they could show. So, even if you do not utilise the BBC it is permitting a wider range of services in the commercial sphere.

In addition, a free service serves to regulate the cost of the commercial services. In the same way that a nationalised utility company would serve to keep utility costs more competitive.

So, the license serves a series of valuable services.

But, if you do not watch TV as it is broadcast then you obviously have no need of the license.

Seeing as almost all broadcast TV is available 'non live' via the web and on demand services the license in the last decade has become 100% optional. This is why I don't understand why people froth like illiterate, rabid dogs over it.

The fact that the license fee is structured in this way and the rapid move towards all TV being OD means that the license will have to change shortly.

Ps. Am aware of the subtleties between broadcast and streaming. But suspect you may be considering 'streaming' in only one of its wide uses

If you wish to watch streamed content live you require a TV License.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 27th December 10:10

A vast majority of the country like to watch sports. Funnily enough they like to watch it as it happens, not the following day/week/year.

That is why people get frustrated.

If it was made voluntary how much do you think they'd raise?

[thinfourth2]

bhstewie said:

But again, and sorry to keep saying it but I don't get why you'd bring commercial businesses into it, those Sky subscribers (of which I am one) or Sun readers (I'm not one) have a choice - they can vote with their feet if they don't like the offering.

Whilst technically you could choose not to fund the BBC you're pretty much talking lifestyle change or a criminal record to avoid doing so rather than "I don't like what Murdoch does so I think I'll buy The Independent today".

Don't forget as well, 200 managers, 3 years and that's what we know of - this isn't a knee jerk bunch of firings.

So how much should the BBC pay?

Market rate or hugely under market rate

Do you want everything to be the lowest possible price where the BBC is involved?

[10 Pence Short]

thinfourth2 said:

So how much should the BBC pay?

Market rate or hugely under market rate

Do you want everything to be the lowest possible price where the BBC is involved?

Very broadly speaking, the power of each party in any negotiation determines the eventual terms. I would argue the BBC, and the CV enhancement that goes with working for it, should preclude them from having to offer both top salary terms and overly generous ancillary packages in order to compete.

I am also wondering why your choice moves from 'Market rate' to 'hugely under market rate'? Are you suggesting that there is no middle ground, or simply that the BBC are not at liberty to offer it? How do you know where the current BBC offerings sit, relative to market? Are you assuming or do you know the BBC currently offers market rate, or better than market rate, or worse?

The fact that this has become newsworthy at all tends to suggest this BBC practice is not considered 'normal'.

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Thursday 27th December 12:23

[bitchstewie]

thinfourth2 said:

So how much should the BBC pay?

Market rate or hugely under market rate

Do you want everything to be the lowest possible price where the BBC is involved?

Market rate is fine and of course it isn't about the lowest possible price, it should however be about getting the best value for our money.

I'd rather pay one excellent person £500k than pay three average people £250k each which from the outside appears to be a bit of cultural problem in the BBC - too many people at the higher levels to the point where even they don't seem to know who is actually responsible for what.

If someone truly independent can show me that in this industry it's standard and best practise to pay someone hundreds of thousands of pounds simply for leaving their job then fair enough, I might not like it but I'd accept it. So far all I think I've seen is the BBC themselves justifying their financial practises with the "Top talent" argument.

[turbobloke]

bhstewie said:

thinfourth2 said:

So how much should the BBC pay?

Market rate or hugely under market rate

Do you want everything to be the lowest possible price where the BBC is involved?

Market rate is fine and of course it isn't about the lowest possible price, it should however be about getting the best value for our money.

I'd rather pay one excellent person £500k than pay three average people £250k each which from the outside appears to be a bit of cultural problem in the BBC - too many people at the higher levels to the point where even they don't seem to know who is actually responsible for what.

If someone truly independent can show me that in this industry it's standard and best practise to pay someone hundreds of thousands of pounds simply for leaving their job then fair enough, I might not like it but I'd accept it. So far all I think I've seen is the BBC themselves justifying their financial practises with the "Top talent" argument.

As here, but an independent look-see at just one recent incident, aka a recent fiasco, blew apart the top talent defence.

[AnotherClarkey]

turbobloke said:

bhstewie said:

thinfourth2 said:

So how much should the BBC pay?

Market rate or hugely under market rate

Do you want everything to be the lowest possible price where the BBC is involved?

Market rate is fine and of course it isn't about the lowest possible price, it should however be about getting the best value for our money.

I'd rather pay one excellent person £500k than pay three average people £250k each which from the outside appears to be a bit of cultural problem in the BBC - too many people at the higher levels to the point where even they don't seem to know who is actually responsible for what.

If someone truly independent can show me that in this industry it's standard and best practise to pay someone hundreds of thousands of pounds simply for leaving their job then fair enough, I might not like it but I'd accept it. So far all I think I've seen is the BBC themselves justifying their financial practises with the "Top talent" argument.

As here, but an independent look-see at just one recent incident, aka a recent fiasco, blew apart the top talent defence.

Utter failure has never prevented the use of the 'top talent' argument in either public or private sectors.

[turbobloke]

AnotherClarkey said:

turbobloke said:

bhstewie said:

thinfourth2 said:

So how much should the BBC pay?

Market rate or hugely under market rate

Do you want everything to be the lowest possible price where the BBC is involved?

Market rate is fine and of course it isn't about the lowest possible price, it should however be about getting the best value for our money.

I'd rather pay one excellent person £500k than pay three average people £250k each which from the outside appears to be a bit of cultural problem in the BBC - too many people at the higher levels to the point where even they don't seem to know who is actually responsible for what.

If someone truly independent can show me that in this industry it's standard and best practise to pay someone hundreds of thousands of pounds simply for leaving their job then fair enough, I might not like it but I'd accept it. So far all I think I've seen is the BBC themselves justifying their financial practises with the "Top talent" argument.

As here, but an independent look-see at just one recent incident, aka a recent fiasco, blew apart the top talent defence.

Utter failure has never prevented the use of the 'top talent' argument in either public or private sectors.

Sure, the problem lies in those who do the recruiting, and since they're generally as bad at their job as the inadequate executives they appoint, here we are. Still, it's likely none of them ever upset anyone, being anonymous and keeping your head down in first-rate mediocrity seems to be the pre-requisite to top office in many places, actual talent is far too tricky to develop or hire.

[Pesty]

AnotherClarkey said:

Utter failure has never prevented the use of the 'top talent' argument in either public or private sectors.

And they always seem to be hired again in other top jobs

Lord Simpson was well worth his money he got payed by marconi.

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

REALIST123 said:

DonkeyApple said:

Because the fee is for watching tv as it is broadcast. As such, with modern on demand and playback services you have no need to watch tv as it is broadcast meaning that it boils down to choice.

But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.

.

If what you say is actually true, then why isn't the fee shared between all of the 30/40 channels?

By the way, do you know the difference between broadcasting and streaming?

It's written on the paper that every license holder purchases.

The License Fee is to allow you to watch television and radio as it is broadcast or streamed. So this is for all channels, stations. You are paying to watch tv.

That is what the license is. So you need it to watch BBC channels or any other commercial content.

Now, separately, the money raised is used in part (not all) to fund a nationalised broadcasting service.

It is important to note that without this service the commercial stations would be more heavily regulated in regards to what content they could show. So, even if you do not utilise the BBC it is permitting a wider range of services in the commercial sphere.

In addition, a free service serves to regulate the cost of the commercial services. In the same way that a nationalised utility company would serve to keep utility costs more competitive.

So, the license serves a series of valuable services.

But, if you do not watch TV as it is broadcast then you obviously have no need of the license.

Seeing as almost all broadcast TV is available 'non live' via the web and on demand services the license in the last decade has become 100% optional. This is why I don't understand why people froth like illiterate, rabid dogs over it.

The fact that the license fee is structured in this way and the rapid move towards all TV being OD means that the license will have to change shortly.

Ps. Am aware of the subtleties between broadcast and streaming. But suspect you may be considering 'streaming' in only one of its wide uses

If you wish to watch streamed content live you require a TV License.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 27th December 10:10

I guess that you also believe the VED is not a tax?

Frankly I don't give a st what glib lies are printed on the license, nor the clap trap that you have so clearly bought into.

The truth is that the BBC, a pretty average quality but massively complex broadcaster is funded by the taxpayer and has a responsibility to spend the taxes it is handed wisely, which it clearly doesn't.

I repeat, make the license fee truly voluntary, with a block on receiving BBC channels if you like, and see what happens.

[DonkeyApple]

REALIST123 said:

DonkeyApple said:

REALIST123 said:

DonkeyApple said:

Because the fee is for watching tv as it is broadcast. As such, with modern on demand and playback services you have no need to watch tv as it is broadcast meaning that it boils down to choice.

But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.

.

If what you say is actually true, then why isn't the fee shared between all of the 30/40 channels?

By the way, do you know the difference between broadcasting and streaming?

It's written on the paper that every license holder purchases.

The License Fee is to allow you to watch television and radio as it is broadcast or streamed. So this is for all channels, stations. You are paying to watch tv.

That is what the license is. So you need it to watch BBC channels or any other commercial content.

Now, separately, the money raised is used in part (not all) to fund a nationalised broadcasting service.

It is important to note that without this service the commercial stations would be more heavily regulated in regards to what content they could show. So, even if you do not utilise the BBC it is permitting a wider range of services in the commercial sphere.

In addition, a free service serves to regulate the cost of the commercial services. In the same way that a nationalised utility company would serve to keep utility costs more competitive.

So, the license serves a series of valuable services.

But, if you do not watch TV as it is broadcast then you obviously have no need of the license.

Seeing as almost all broadcast TV is available 'non live' via the web and on demand services the license in the last decade has become 100% optional. This is why I don't understand why people froth like illiterate, rabid dogs over it.

The fact that the license fee is structured in this way and the rapid move towards all TV being OD means that the license will have to change shortly.

Ps. Am aware of the subtleties between broadcast and streaming. But suspect you may be considering 'streaming' in only one of its wide uses

If you wish to watch streamed content live you require a TV License.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 27th December 10:10

I guess that you also believe the VED is not a tax?

Frankly I don't give a st what glib lies are printed on the license, nor the clap trap that you have so clearly bought into.

The truth is that the BBC, a pretty average quality but massively complex broadcaster is funded by the taxpayer and has a responsibility to spend the taxes it is handed wisely, which it clearly doesn't.

I repeat, make the license fee truly voluntary, with a block on receiving BBC channels if you like, and see what happens.

When you've calmed down, just take a few minutes to tread the contract you have agreed to.

I guess another benefit of the TV License is that it clearly irritates idiots. Which is always good.

[DonkeyApple]

bhstewie said:

DonkeyApple said:

I tend to agree but it's not a lot different to Sky subscribers or Sun readers paying for the playoffs to all those victims. It's called business.

I think it is also worth looking at who it is who has left the BBC and why they were paid off and not fired? Arguably because they are disposing of non guilty people to assuage the public?

But again, and sorry to keep saying it but I don't get why you'd bring commercial businesses into it, those Sky subscribers (of which I am one) or Sun readers (I'm not one) have a choice - they can vote with their feet if they don't like the offering.

Whilst technically you could choose not to fund the BBC you're pretty much talking lifestyle change or a criminal record to avoid doing so rather than "I don't like what Murdoch does so I think I'll buy The Independent today".

Don't forget as well, 200 managers, 3 years and that's what we know of - this isn't a knee jerk bunch of firings.

But we are free to opt out of terrestrial TV as well.

A lot of people seem to think that if you own a TV you have to own a license.

I have chosen to not pay for Sky or other similar services and I have also chosen not to pay for a TV License as I don't need that service in that particular place. But I still have a TV there and watch TV shows.

The TV License is optional. If you want the service it covers then you can buy it. Just like anything else.

These threads often crop up on PH and the same people get very angry but it always becomes clear that these angry folk have just stumped up money for something without ever bothering to read what it is they are buying.

Personally, I cannot see a single thing about the TV License to get upset about as I am free to choose the service it covers or leave it. Just as everyone else is. For £10 a month it does strike me as a total bargain. When you consider it delivers over 30 channels and funds an entire network. When you look at the numbers in cold light you can see that Sky subscribers are paying massively over the odds for the service they are getting.

[bitchstewie]

DonkeyApple said:

A lot of people seem to think that if you own a TV you have to own a license.

I don't think that

Honestly I think the premise that "If you're not happy with how the BBC spends your license fee it's simple, just change your life and never ever watch any realtime transmission television ever" is a bit of a naive one.

Of course that pretty much sums up the current legal situation which is what I think frustrates a lot of people - if you don't want to watch the BBC you're still stuck paying for it, and if you do want to watch it then sure, it's cheap enough for what you get, but think how much cheaper it could be if you cut out some of those pointless layers of management?

[Funk]

I also wholly believe that people are deliberately misled into thinking they need a TV licence if they simply 'have' a TV. The fact you're interrogated for your address when purchasing a TV in a retail environment supports this.

They don't want people realising they don't need one.

[hidetheelephants]

10 Pence Short said:

thinfourth2 said:

So how much should the BBC pay?

Market rate or hugely under market rate

Do you want everything to be the lowest possible price where the BBC is involved?

Very broadly speaking, the power of each party in any negotiation determines the eventual terms. I would argue the BBC, and the CV enhancement that goes with working for it, should preclude them from having to offer both top salary terms and overly generous ancillary packages in order to compete.

I am also wondering why your choice moves from 'Market rate' to 'hugely under market rate'? Are you suggesting that there is no middle ground, or simply that the BBC are not at liberty to offer it? How do you know where the current BBC offerings sit, relative to market? Are you assuming or do you know the BBC currently offers market rate, or better than market rate, or worse?

The fact that this has become newsworthy at all tends to suggest this BBC practice is not considered 'normal'.

It seems worthwhile to highlight that these highly paid managers think that the same pay policy does not apply to the peons; skilled technicians, sound recorders and camera ops are hired on day rates that would ring bells with anyone who worked there in the 1980s. I suspect that the T&Cs are entirely different at the sharp end too, for both permanent and contract staff.

[DonkeyApple]

Funk said:

I also wholly believe that people are deliberately misled into thinking they need a TV licence if they simply 'have' a TV. The fact you're interrogated for your address when purchasing a TV in a retail environment supports this.

They don't want people realising they don't need one.

Exactly. It's a very convenient situation.

The more people who read the print and take appropriate action then the sooner some things will change.

TV on demand and through the Internet will need the current situation revising formally and the more people who understand then the better off we will be when this revision happens.

[Halb]

DonkeyApple said:

On a property we have I have taken down the aerial and removed the internal sockets. The property also has no phone line or wifi so is easy to prove compliance. On another we do have wifi but it is a question of whether you can prove you have not been using it to access live terrestrial broadcasts.

Anyone for charades or sardines?

DonkeyApple said:

Exactly. It's a very convenient situation.
The more people who read the print and take appropriate action then the sooner some things will change.
TV on demand and through the Internet will need the current situation revising formally and the more people who understand then the better off we will be when this revision happens.

That's a fairly recent change. Still useless for people like me on the edges of the wild who get better streaming on my 3g phone.

bhstewie said:

...it's cheap enough for what you get, but think how much cheaper it could be if you cut out some of those pointless layers of management?

Or better...how many gems like Zen could be made!