Freedom from TV license oppression
Discussion
chris watton said:
We have Sky Anytime and Virgin Prime, both of these choices allow you to download/watch films, documentaries and whole TV series box sets with zero adverts.
BBC is like a cassette player in an MP3 age - it is hardly ever watched in our household, and the kids don't watch much TV full stop - social media is where it's at for them.
so 2 channels have no advertsBBC is like a cassette player in an MP3 age - it is hardly ever watched in our household, and the kids don't watch much TV full stop - social media is where it's at for them.
What about the rest?
We both know that SKY is stuff full of adverts
Adverts are paid for by companies
companies get money from customers
Ergo me being a customer I am paying for sky
4v6 said:
McWigglebum4th said:
I don't have sky but is still have to pay for it
I dont have sky and I dont pay them a penny.I can't and most people in the UK can't
For example I think my insurance company advertises on SKY (not too sure which channel its the one with lots of repeats)
From my insurance premium 1% roughly goes to advertising and some of that goes to crappy adverts which is straight into SKYs bank account
Same with washing powder, baked beans, shopping, phone, bog roll, mayonnaise, snot rags and beer
4v6 said:
McWigglebum4th said:
At least with the BBC i have a choice
Sky, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 etc no choice
How do you have any choice to NOT pay the bbc's protection racket money?Sky, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 etc no choice
there you go
Wasn't very hard
4v6 said:
And once again ( I'll shut up when I get an answer to this one btw ):
Why is it not possible for the bbc to stand on its own two feet like ALL the other uk broadcasters?
What makes them so much better that the only way they can survive is parasitically from either taxpayers or licence fee payers?
Surely if theyre so good theyd be well capable of dispensing with their hated licence fee ( again why only are they eligible for it?) and produce programmes via subscription that ONLY those who wanted would pay for, just like skys encrypted services.
Dont want sky sports? Dont buy it. Simple enough.
It is perfectly possible for the BBC to compete on a commercial basisWhy is it not possible for the bbc to stand on its own two feet like ALL the other uk broadcasters?
What makes them so much better that the only way they can survive is parasitically from either taxpayers or licence fee payers?
Surely if theyre so good theyd be well capable of dispensing with their hated licence fee ( again why only are they eligible for it?) and produce programmes via subscription that ONLY those who wanted would pay for, just like skys encrypted services.
Dont want sky sports? Dont buy it. Simple enough.
It will just have to drop the stuff they do which makes them unique like BBC 4 and radio 4
But you are one of those addicted to the crap that streams out of SKY so you probably find those two particular channels frightening
Crafty_ said:
ref mph1977 & DonkeyApple posts:
Regardless of the technicalities the fact remains I'm forced to fund the utter mess that we call the BBC in order to have access to another supplier's product.
Its like having to pay shell to fill up with BP fuel because I won a petrol car.
It is ridiculous.
The sooner the "fee" is scrapped, the better. If that means the BBC disappears, so be it - I won't miss it.
If you think the replacement fee will be lower then you are Regardless of the technicalities the fact remains I'm forced to fund the utter mess that we call the BBC in order to have access to another supplier's product.
Its like having to pay shell to fill up with BP fuel because I won a petrol car.
It is ridiculous.
The sooner the "fee" is scrapped, the better. If that means the BBC disappears, so be it - I won't miss it.
A quick question.
Seeing that 100% of my telly taxes goes directly to the socialist workers party of labour supporters
Who pays for all the telly transmitters dotted around the UK?
And how does the wonderful high quality channel ITV pay to transmit such cultural highlights like X-factor across the land
Seeing that 100% of my telly taxes goes directly to the socialist workers party of labour supporters
Who pays for all the telly transmitters dotted around the UK?
And how does the wonderful high quality channel ITV pay to transmit such cultural highlights like X-factor across the land
Crafty_ said:
McWigglebum4th said:
If you think the replacement fee will be lower then you are
What "replacement" ?I pay for Sky, thats it, end of. I would not subscribe to any BBC services.
You think that the government won't make a tax grab
It will be a media tax which will be on ALL forms of anything with sound or moving picture
You might be able to use a flik book without getting a tax bill but i doubt it
Crafty_ said:
Of course you know all this for a fact, right ?In any case it doesn't change the fact that if the BBC are forced to go commercial I can choose to fund them or not, rather than the situation at the moment where I have no choice but to do so.
Crafty_ said:
Now tell me something I don't know
Now tell me why I should be expected to fund the BBC when I do not want their product or services ?
Do you pay Tesco when you buy your shopping is Sainsburys ?
Do you pay Shell when you buy fuel from BP ?
Do you pay Plusnet when you buy your broadband from BT ?
No. So why should I be forced to pay for the utter shambles that is the BBC in order to watch Sky programs on the TV ?
It. makes. no. sense.
All of which are private companiesNow tell me why I should be expected to fund the BBC when I do not want their product or services ?
Do you pay Tesco when you buy your shopping is Sainsburys ?
Do you pay Shell when you buy fuel from BP ?
Do you pay Plusnet when you buy your broadband from BT ?
No. So why should I be forced to pay for the utter shambles that is the BBC in order to watch Sky programs on the TV ?
It. makes. no. sense.
The BBC is a government agency
You can easily stop paying for the BBC drop your sky subscription and phone up the BBC and tell them to do one
Crafty_ said:
You didn't answer the question.
Why should I be forced to fund the BBC if I wish to buy a competitor's product. I can't think of a single instance of this happening elsewhere.
Private company or public agency, it makes no difference to me does it ?
I can't give you a single reason which is nice even fair or moralWhy should I be forced to fund the BBC if I wish to buy a competitor's product. I can't think of a single instance of this happening elsewhere.
Private company or public agency, it makes no difference to me does it ?
Apart from you being forced to pay for the BBC means i get to listen to Radio 4 :thumb up:
As in the commercial world it would vanish in a puff of consumer led choice
DonkeyApple said:
Although let's get to the real nub here, it isn't about costs it's about wanting to remove a left wing media outlet from society so as to shift the media output to the right. That is why in this type of debate you get right wingers leaning on libertarians for support.
So, let's say that this hatred of the BBC is all about its left leaning and really nothing to do with licenses or money or advertising then what are the benefits to anyone in removing a left wing media outlet? Silencing debate is a frightening concept is it and yet this is what people with strong views tend to desire.
Is there also a class issue here? In that the poorest who have to pay are most likely to be using the junk end of the TV spectrum?
But in short, any cause that requires right wingers to call on fringe, communist groups for support needs to be extremely well looked at as there is something very insidious in the nature of poles converging.
Ah haSo, let's say that this hatred of the BBC is all about its left leaning and really nothing to do with licenses or money or advertising then what are the benefits to anyone in removing a left wing media outlet? Silencing debate is a frightening concept is it and yet this is what people with strong views tend to desire.
Is there also a class issue here? In that the poorest who have to pay are most likely to be using the junk end of the TV spectrum?
But in short, any cause that requires right wingers to call on fringe, communist groups for support needs to be extremely well looked at as there is something very insidious in the nature of poles converging.
Someone has got to the heart of the matter
If the BBC had unemployed people being fed into woodchoppers as family entertainment show followed by 3 hours of thatchers greatest speeches then PH would greatly approve of the BBC
Meanwhile SKY which is braindead crap is viewed as right wing because they had Cameron in their pocket coming up to the election
10 Pence Short said:
Erm, how does your logic work?
This isn't Saudi Arabia.
If you'd be happy to live in Saudi-like conditions in order to protect your one-religion State, of course...
I ofte think a christian verson of saudi arabia would be a daily mail readers wet dream.This isn't Saudi Arabia.
If you'd be happy to live in Saudi-like conditions in order to protect your one-religion State, of course...
Imagine the joy of having moral police beating the crap out of anyone who does not fit in
BUMP
the TV license will be dead in 15 years time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623...
To be replaced by a mandatory tax on everyone whether you watch the idiot box or not
Be careful what you wish far
the TV license will be dead in 15 years time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623...
To be replaced by a mandatory tax on everyone whether you watch the idiot box or not
Be careful what you wish far
Funk said:
McWigglebum4th said:
BUMP
the TV license will be dead in 15 years time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623...
To be replaced by a mandatory tax on everyone whether you watch the idiot box or not
Be careful what you wish far
I won't pay it. Simple as that.the TV license will be dead in 15 years time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623...
To be replaced by a mandatory tax on everyone whether you watch the idiot box or not
Be careful what you wish far
As you can bet your arse it will be the ultimate response if you don't pay the new media tax
chris watton said:
If the BBC is as great as some on here are saying, then it will be as successful, if not more, than SKY, if it were to become a subscription based model?
Only about 10% of what the BBC turns out is decentAnd that 10% is only decent if you have an IQ higher then a fish
I am sure the BBC in its current form would go belly up within a year as the majority of the UK loves the fish level IQ fodder that sky and its ilk churn out
Funk said:
Sounds.....thrilling.
What you seem to have there is some back-to-back climate change programming (a staple of BBC topics) and something about monasteries that could be interesting if you like that sort of thing and was made by independent film and TV production company "Oxford Film and TV" (not the BBC)
Nothing about any of the programmes you've posted is of any interest to me though I'm afraid!
Why the fWhat you seem to have there is some back-to-back climate change programming (a staple of BBC topics) and something about monasteries that could be interesting if you like that sort of thing and was made by independent film and TV production company "Oxford Film and TV" (not the BBC)
Nothing about any of the programmes you've posted is of any interest to me though I'm afraid!
Edited by Funk on Sunday 1st March 16:36
k can't we have decent telly likeTHATCHER her greatest speeches
Poor people being killed with wood chippers
101 great tasting audi dashboards
Speed dreams: the fastest place on earth
tangerine_sedge said:
I read, but cannot now find an interesting article on theregister which held the opinion based on some basic analysis, that if the BBC was privatised, then it would fundamentally destroy the commercial TV market in the UK. I can't remmeber the detailsm but the argument was something along the lines of :
(i) BBC monthly fee would increase from ~£12/month (license) to ~£20/month (commercial)
(ii) Most people in the UK would still elect to choose the BBC, meaning that BBC revenues (from the additional £8/month) would actually increase.
(iii) Many people would give up BT/Sky/Virgin media to pay for it (rather than pay for both).
The outcome is rising revenue for the BBC, combined with reducing costs (no public responsibility means they can drop all the content which isn't commercial enough). Whilst the other providers face falling subscriber numbers, and falling advert revenues (if the BBC carries adverts then that's hundreds of hours of additional advertising space), which in turn impacts their ability to buy the sport/big US TV shows, which in turn then feeds into a death spiral for them.
The bottom line is that you can't just change how the BBC is funded and expect everything to continue with no impact. You might find that you end up paying more, AND have less choice.
I believe the most watch channel on sky TV is actually BBC 1(i) BBC monthly fee would increase from ~£12/month (license) to ~£20/month (commercial)
(ii) Most people in the UK would still elect to choose the BBC, meaning that BBC revenues (from the additional £8/month) would actually increase.
(iii) Many people would give up BT/Sky/Virgin media to pay for it (rather than pay for both).
The outcome is rising revenue for the BBC, combined with reducing costs (no public responsibility means they can drop all the content which isn't commercial enough). Whilst the other providers face falling subscriber numbers, and falling advert revenues (if the BBC carries adverts then that's hundreds of hours of additional advertising space), which in turn impacts their ability to buy the sport/big US TV shows, which in turn then feeds into a death spiral for them.
The bottom line is that you can't just change how the BBC is funded and expect everything to continue with no impact. You might find that you end up paying more, AND have less choice.
turbobloke said:
Back on topic McW4, nice work.
However the point remains that while it's possible not to pay the licence fee the whole context is totalitarian in that a lot of the money from those who are either stupid, or raving lefties (as you put it, and not forgetting the overlap) goes to the BBC whether those paying want it to or not and whether they watch and listen to tbe BBC's biased output or not.
Those who want to watch the BBC's propaganda should pay what it takes, with nobody else paying a penny. If it's not so important that they'd pay what it takes, the BBC can do what other outfits do when they can't attract willing sources of funds i.e. without being propped up artificially - shrink or disappear.
Do you pay your license fee?However the point remains that while it's possible not to pay the licence fee the whole context is totalitarian in that a lot of the money from those who are either stupid, or raving lefties (as you put it, and not forgetting the overlap) goes to the BBC whether those paying want it to or not and whether they watch and listen to tbe BBC's biased output or not.
Those who want to watch the BBC's propaganda should pay what it takes, with nobody else paying a penny. If it's not so important that they'd pay what it takes, the BBC can do what other outfits do when they can't attract willing sources of funds i.e. without being propped up artificially - shrink or disappear.
As you are so outraged by it then i would be very disappointed if you did
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff