Freedom from TV license oppression
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
funkyrobot said:
as we don't watch anything live, we aren't doing anything wrong.
How tight can you get! Watching the programmes and getting other people to pay for it.Just to add to your fury, I park in disabled spaces, get free prescriptions at the doctors and never give to charity.
Who even said we watch BBC channels anyway?
funkyrobot said:
We had the usual 'you mustn't watch live transmissions and someone will be sent round to check' stuff. But, as we don't watch anything live, we aren't doing anything wrong.
We bought one for the Winter Olympics. Prior to that, we did the declaration of not needing one, and a bloke did come round to check. He said, 'can I come in to check?', and I said 'yes', and he said 'right, well I don't need to then', in some kind of bizarre call-my-bluff exercise. Fair enough 
AJS- said:
It's not about the level of the tax, it's the principle. Why should everyone who owns a television pay for one particular broadcaster?
Because there needs to be something to stand against a system where profit is the only driver. If the BBC didn't exist then there wouldn't be anywhere to escape from the horrendous deluge of advertising pushed out by the commercial channels. They are desperate to destroy the licence fee so that their only real competition is removed.Anyone who travels much will know how abysmal television is in most countries & how envious foreigners are of the BBC output. There are many counties where it's the only source of news of what's happening in their own country. Now you might argue that it's not up to the UK to do this but it helps a lot of people around the world.
The BBC is far from perfect but we are in grave danger of ending up with PBS UK.
When ever I'm abroad I look at the quality of the telly and it's absolute s
te, everywhere. Yes the Yanks knock out some half decent programmes occasionally but when transmitted they're so littered with adverts they're unwatchable. Thats assuming you can even find these programmes amongst the shear volume of dross transmitted in the States.
We have without doubt the best telly in the world by miles and this is only down to the BBC. They set the standard that all commercial channels must beat to attract viewers. Take the BBC out of the equation and our telly will sink to the depths of everyone else in a matter of months. How fast do you really think Sky and ITV would sink if they weren't truly competing for your viewing time against an advert free channel that over the years has delivered some of telly's most memorable moments.
You may not watch the BBC because you think the commercial operations are better but that's only because they have to be. You want quality telly? The license fee is the price you need to pay whether received by satellite, cable, aerial or the net.
Disclaimer. The BBC needs sorting out, is badly run, it's too left wing and wastes a ton of money. But we still need it.
te, everywhere. Yes the Yanks knock out some half decent programmes occasionally but when transmitted they're so littered with adverts they're unwatchable. Thats assuming you can even find these programmes amongst the shear volume of dross transmitted in the States.We have without doubt the best telly in the world by miles and this is only down to the BBC. They set the standard that all commercial channels must beat to attract viewers. Take the BBC out of the equation and our telly will sink to the depths of everyone else in a matter of months. How fast do you really think Sky and ITV would sink if they weren't truly competing for your viewing time against an advert free channel that over the years has delivered some of telly's most memorable moments.
You may not watch the BBC because you think the commercial operations are better but that's only because they have to be. You want quality telly? The license fee is the price you need to pay whether received by satellite, cable, aerial or the net.
Disclaimer. The BBC needs sorting out, is badly run, it's too left wing and wastes a ton of money. But we still need it.
Mr Pointy said:
Because there needs to be something to stand against a system where profit is the only driver.
Like a system where criminal charges are brought against people who don't subscribe? Why do we need this?Why not fund it by charitable donations, or if you think it's such a public good, general taxation?
AJS- said:
Why not fund it by charitable donations, or if you think it's such a public good, general taxation?
General taxation would mean state funded and therefore it would loose it's independence and turn into a propaganda machine for whoever was in power.Granted it's current status of funding is not ideal and it alway has politically swung to the left but I haven't heard of an alternative system yet. It's still pretty hard for the politicians to get at it for their own benefit.
AJS- said:
Great idea.
It's not about the level of the tax, it's the principle. Why should everyone who owns a television pay for one particular broadcaster?
Because it is the only one that doesn't continually interupt programmes with advertisments, it relies on the licence fee to allow it to operate in that way.It's not about the level of the tax, it's the principle. Why should everyone who owns a television pay for one particular broadcaster?
I have no problem with it, I watch little TV anyway, but still consider it value for money.
Harry H said:
When ever I'm abroad I look at the quality of the telly and it's absolute ste, everywhere. Yes the Yanks knock out some half decent programmes occasionally but when transmitted they're so littered with adverts they're unwatchable. Thats assuming you can even find these programmes amongst the shear volume of dross transmitted in the States.
We have without doubt the best telly in the world by miles and this is only down to the BBC. They set the standard that all commercial channels must beat to attract viewers. Take the BBC out of the equation and our telly will sink to the depths of everyone else in a matter of months. How fast do you really think Sky and ITV would sink if they weren't truly competing for your viewing time against an advert free channel that over the years has delivered some of telly's most memorable moments.
You may not watch the BBC because you think the commercial operations are better but that's only because they have to be. You want quality telly? The license fee is the price you need to pay whether received by satellite, cable, aerial or the net.
Disclaimer. The BBC needs sorting out, is badly run, it's too left wing and wastes a ton of money. But we still need it.
I can't disagree with a single point you've made, here.te, everywhere. Yes the Yanks knock out some half decent programmes occasionally but when transmitted they're so littered with adverts they're unwatchable. Thats assuming you can even find these programmes amongst the shear volume of dross transmitted in the States.We have without doubt the best telly in the world by miles and this is only down to the BBC. They set the standard that all commercial channels must beat to attract viewers. Take the BBC out of the equation and our telly will sink to the depths of everyone else in a matter of months. How fast do you really think Sky and ITV would sink if they weren't truly competing for your viewing time against an advert free channel that over the years has delivered some of telly's most memorable moments.
You may not watch the BBC because you think the commercial operations are better but that's only because they have to be. You want quality telly? The license fee is the price you need to pay whether received by satellite, cable, aerial or the net.
Disclaimer. The BBC needs sorting out, is badly run, it's too left wing and wastes a ton of money. But we still need it.
Harry H said:
General taxation would mean state funded and therefore it would loose it's independence and turn into a propaganda machine for whoever was in power.
As if it is independent now! It just gets to choose how it portrays itself.I would rather a clear government propaganda machine than the self-promoting pile it is now.
Getting rid of the TV license is a brilliant way to ensure that the TV schedules are filled with mindless drivel which seek to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to maximise advertising revenues.
Investigative Journalism programmes like Panorama? Nope - sorry that has been replaced with a 'black kids do backflips' type of talent show as the key demographic for advertisers like that sort of thing.
Interesting documentaries like the one Clarkson made about the Artic Convoys? Nope - here is a programme about what shoes Kim Kardashian likes to buy 'cos the 16-25 year olds aren't interested in how vital supply lines were maintained during the war
Like some intellectual stimulus from R4's Today Programme? Sorry instead we bring you a something that sounds exactly like every other local radio bullst with adverts every 10 minutes for carpet remnant warehouses.
I may not like everything the BBC does - or it's standpoints over certain issues - but its a public service that provides an enormous amount of important content that wouldn't ever see the light of day in a purely commercial model - and I for one am enormously grateful for that.
Investigative Journalism programmes like Panorama? Nope - sorry that has been replaced with a 'black kids do backflips' type of talent show as the key demographic for advertisers like that sort of thing.
Interesting documentaries like the one Clarkson made about the Artic Convoys? Nope - here is a programme about what shoes Kim Kardashian likes to buy 'cos the 16-25 year olds aren't interested in how vital supply lines were maintained during the war
Like some intellectual stimulus from R4's Today Programme? Sorry instead we bring you a something that sounds exactly like every other local radio bulls
t with adverts every 10 minutes for carpet remnant warehouses.I may not like everything the BBC does - or it's standpoints over certain issues - but its a public service that provides an enormous amount of important content that wouldn't ever see the light of day in a purely commercial model - and I for one am enormously grateful for that.
Harry H said:
When ever I'm abroad I look at the quality of the telly and it's absolute ste, everywhere. Yes the Yanks knock out some half decent programmes occasionally but when transmitted they're so littered with adverts they're unwatchable. Thats assuming you can even find these programmes amongst the shear volume of dross transmitted in the States.
We have without doubt the best telly in the world by miles and this is only down to the BBC. They set the standard that all commercial channels must beat to attract viewers. Take the BBC out of the equation and our telly will sink to the depths of everyone else in a matter of months. How fast do you really think Sky and ITV would sink if they weren't truly competing for your viewing time against an advert free channel that over the years has delivered some of telly's most memorable moments.
You may not watch the BBC because you think the commercial operations are better but that's only because they have to be. You want quality telly? The license fee is the price you need to pay whether received by satellite, cable, aerial or the net.
Disclaimer. The BBC needs sorting out, is badly run, it's too left wing and wastes a ton of money. But we still need it.
While the competition from the BBC may help to drive up the quality of other broadcasters (I have some doubts about that personally) the way the BBC is funded stifles competition further down the food-chain however.te, everywhere. Yes the Yanks knock out some half decent programmes occasionally but when transmitted they're so littered with adverts they're unwatchable. Thats assuming you can even find these programmes amongst the shear volume of dross transmitted in the States.We have without doubt the best telly in the world by miles and this is only down to the BBC. They set the standard that all commercial channels must beat to attract viewers. Take the BBC out of the equation and our telly will sink to the depths of everyone else in a matter of months. How fast do you really think Sky and ITV would sink if they weren't truly competing for your viewing time against an advert free channel that over the years has delivered some of telly's most memorable moments.
You may not watch the BBC because you think the commercial operations are better but that's only because they have to be. You want quality telly? The license fee is the price you need to pay whether received by satellite, cable, aerial or the net.
Disclaimer. The BBC needs sorting out, is badly run, it's too left wing and wastes a ton of money. But we still need it.
If the BBC were not dumping its subsidised free products onto every conceivable platform from local radio to internet news, the commercial market in these areas might just have a hope of becoming healthier and more genuinely competitive.
Independent local radio stations would have a chance to survive, newspaper websites would not be put in the impossible position of matching the mega-funded (free) BBC news website, and the web-based subscription film market would not have to suffer the encroachment of a subsidised spoiler in their midst.
The market is skewed in the direction of the BBC in these areas, and while I don't for a second suggest that ad-free TV is not 'better' than the US alternative, it's disingenuous to suggest that the US model of broadcasting would be the one we're plunged into if the BBC were made to fund itself.
The BBC views itself as a competitor to the commercial providers in every space it chooses to enter, which is a world away from the public service broadcaster it was intended to be - therefore if it wants to act like a commercial supplier, it should be one and not use it's unique position to stifle competition.
Mark Benson said:
While the competition from the BBC may help to drive up the quality of other broadcasters (I have some doubts about that personally) the way the BBC is funded stifles competition further down the food-chain however.
If the BBC were not dumping its subsidised free products onto every conceivable platform from local radio to internet news, the commercial market in these areas might just have a hope of becoming healthier and more genuinely competitive.
Independent local radio stations would have a chance to survive, newspaper websites would not be put in the impossible position of matching the mega-funded (free) BBC news website, and the web-based subscription film market would not have to suffer the encroachment of a subsidised spoiler in their midst.
The market is skewed in the direction of the BBC in these areas, and while I don't for a second suggest that ad-free TV is not 'better' than the US alternative, it's disingenuous to suggest that the US model of broadcasting would be the one we're plunged into if the BBC were made to fund itself.
The BBC views itself as a competitor to the commercial providers in every space it chooses to enter, which is a world away from the public service broadcaster it was intended to be - therefore if it wants to act like a commercial supplier, it should be one and not use it's unique position to stifle competition.
There's no doubt about it positioning the BBC amongst the commercial sector has it's challenges but surely it can't be a coincidence we are pretty much the only nation to have something like the BBC and have the best telly in the world.If the BBC were not dumping its subsidised free products onto every conceivable platform from local radio to internet news, the commercial market in these areas might just have a hope of becoming healthier and more genuinely competitive.
Independent local radio stations would have a chance to survive, newspaper websites would not be put in the impossible position of matching the mega-funded (free) BBC news website, and the web-based subscription film market would not have to suffer the encroachment of a subsidised spoiler in their midst.
The market is skewed in the direction of the BBC in these areas, and while I don't for a second suggest that ad-free TV is not 'better' than the US alternative, it's disingenuous to suggest that the US model of broadcasting would be the one we're plunged into if the BBC were made to fund itself.
The BBC views itself as a competitor to the commercial providers in every space it chooses to enter, which is a world away from the public service broadcaster it was intended to be - therefore if it wants to act like a commercial supplier, it should be one and not use it's unique position to stifle competition.
There's no way you can trust the free market completely it just doesn't work out how we would want. Banking et al.
I was skiing in the States recently and over there you can't even trust the Weather Forecasts on local commercial radio. Or maybe it was a coincidence that whichever resort was sponsoring the Weather slot always seemed to have the best conditions for skiing that day;)
Edited by Harry H on Tuesday 18th March 11:34
Mark Benson said:
If the BBC were not dumping its subsidised free products onto every conceivable platform from local radio to internet news, the commercial market in these areas might just have a hope of becoming healthier and more genuinely competitive.
I like the BBC, but I've long thought its "mission creep" is a bit odd.Harry H said:
There's no way you can trust the free market completely it just doesn't work out how we would want.
I was skiing in the States recently and over there you can't even trust the Weather Forecasts on local commercial radio. Or maybe it was a coincidence that whichever resort was sponsoring the Weather slot always seemed to have the best conditions for skiing that day;)
Why do we have to move to a totally free market model?I was skiing in the States recently and over there you can't even trust the Weather Forecasts on local commercial radio. Or maybe it was a coincidence that whichever resort was sponsoring the Weather slot always seemed to have the best conditions for skiing that day;)
You paint a picture of immediate and total commercial ruination of the UK's TV output. We are not the US. What's acceptable there would not be tolerated here anyway, my US friends seem oblivious to most of the advertising 'product' they're fed and don't see a problem in it, as you say yourself the British do not have that level of tolerance.
Go to many European countries and you'll see much the same advertising content we get on ITV, I'd suggest that's what would happen if the BBC were to be commercialised.
However I don't think a commercial BBC would survive - it's been state-funded for too long and simply could not compete in the real-world. The answer though is not 'more BBC', the answer is to reduce the size and ambition of the corporation, they must realise that their remit is not to compete with, but to complement the existing output from other broadcasters and to provide more of the sort of programming which simply would not be produced were commercial considerations the only driver.
Mark
We're broadly in agreement but disagree to the level the commercial sector would sink to were it not for the BBC. I see no reason why it wouldn't end up as per the States. "The land of the free".
Yes the BBC needs to continually evolve but total abolition would not be in our interests.
We're broadly in agreement but disagree to the level the commercial sector would sink to were it not for the BBC. I see no reason why it wouldn't end up as per the States. "The land of the free".
Yes the BBC needs to continually evolve but total abolition would not be in our interests.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff