BBC licence fee poll.

[Murph7355]

Randy Winkman said:

How much do such people get on other channels?

If the BBC were truly competing with other channels then I'd have some sympathy with this view.

As they are not, I don't.

Unless the other channels are absorbing all people capable of these jobs, then the BBC should simply set a cap and let people take it or leave it.

As for Jon Simpson getting pissy. Other industries have had to do this for a while. Christ, even politicians have to be relatively transparent now.

[TTwiggy]

Murph7355 said:

If the BBC were truly competing with other channels then I'd have some sympathy with this view.

As they are not, I don't.

They may not be competing for ratings but they are competing in the same market place for staff. That should be obvious.

[Moonhawk]

TTwiggy said:

They may not be competing for ratings but they are competing in the same market place for staff. That should be obvious.

Perhaps - but there is hardly an endless supply of TV presenting/news reading jobs.

Do the BBC really have no choice but to pay Gary Lineker £1.75 million otherwise he would be poached to ITV or Channel? Is there nobody else who could do his role should be do make such a move?

There are sports presenters being paid ~1/10th of what Lineker gets paid. Are they really doing 10 times less work, or adding 10 times less value?

[Funk]

C70R said:

I'm actually struggling to understand how someone can go an entire year without watching a BBC TV channel, listening to a BBC radio station or using iPlayer.

I'm not a particularly heavy TV viewer (probably 6-7hrs a week), but even I can see the value in the little exposure I get. I appreciate TV/radio being made without commercial purposes in mind, and being delivered without 20min of adverts per hour.
I get my news from other sources, so I don't really see any great political bias.
As such, I'm happy to spend a tenner a month (what else is that going to buy me?) on a licence.

I'm preparing myself for a barrage of "I don't even own a TV, mate" and "nobody watches TV any more, mate" responses from the usual contrarian PH massive.

I can tell you how - because I do it every year. I just simply don't watch live TV, I don't use iPlayer - ergo I see no BBC TV. I've corrected your error regarding radio as it is not a requirement to have a TV licence to listen to the radio, however I rarely ever listen to the radio either and when I do it's not the BBC.

That said, as noted above I did buy Planet Earth II on 4k BluRay - I can pick and choose what I want and not pay for stuff I don't.

The reality is that the way people watch things has changed. That trend will only continue. Young people aren't watching TV in the way we used to when we were kids and there were 4 channels to choose from.

[TTwiggy]

Moonhawk said:

Perhaps - but there is hardly an endless supply of TV presenting/news reading jobs.

Do the BBC really have no choice but to pay Gary Lineker £1.75 million otherwise he would be poached to ITV or Channel? Is there nobody else who could do his role should be do make such a move?

There are sports presenters being paid ~1/10th of what Lineker gets paid. Are they really doing 10 times less work, or adding 10 times less value?

While those are valid points, it's an argument that could be made across any industry. Employment terms and conditions are rarely based on a pure meritocracy principle and some people will always manage to secure far higher remuneration than others for much the same job.

The simple fact is that the BBC is competing for talent in a shared pool and has to pay the market rate (with the caveat that 'market rate' at this level of job is an ambiguous term and is influenced by many factors, not least what a good agent can screw out of the prospective employer).

[C70R]

Cotty said:

C70R said:

I'm actually struggling to understand how someone can go an entire year without watching a BBC TV channel, listening to a BBC radio station or using iPlayer.

The BBC does not fit the way I watch TV. I mainly watch it on the train on my commute so copy DVD's to my ipod or download episodes and films from Amazon. The way I see it I can use the money that would pay for the licence to buy DVD's, some of which are BBC programs but I can watch them when I like and as often as I like. Things like Planet Earth and Death in Paradise.

My TV at home has a DVD player and an Xbo360 connected to it, it cannot receive live TV.

iPlayer allows you to download BBC programmes and watch online, and there is (I believe) an iPlayer app on the Xbox too (meaning you could watch live or on catchup if you chose).

[C70R]

I saw this:

turbobloke said:

It's easy not to watch or listen to BBC propaganda ... a reminder why not watching their continually partisan output

Then I saw this:

turbobloke said:

turbobloke
79,854 posts
179 months

Then I realised that debating was probably a waste of time.
Does anyone actually talk like this in the real world? Or is it just for effect on the internet?

[Moonhawk]

TTwiggy said:

While those are valid points, it's an argument that could be made across any industry. Employment terms and conditions are rarely based on a pure meritocracy principle and some people will always manage to secure far higher remuneration than others for much the same job.

True - but in other industries the discrepancy is rarely so wide for similar roles.

TTwiggy said:

The simple fact is that the BBC is competing for talent in a shared pool and has to pay the market rate (with the caveat that 'market rate' at this level of job is an ambiguous term and is influenced by many factors, not least what a good agent can screw out of the prospective employer).

Yep - and I have no problem with that. There is an old saying that goes something like "you aren't paid what you are worth - you are paid what you negotiate for".

If that is truly the case in the BBC - fair enough, but it does make the whole "gender pay gap" argument fall flat. If there is no defined pay structure and the men (or their agents) are simply negotiating harder and securing better pay deals - then surely that doesn't indicate gender discrimination, just good business acumen on behalf of the men (or their agents).

[C70R]

La Liga said:

turbobloke said:

austinsmirk said:

I too never believe people when they say they don't use the BBC: what, you never turn the radio on in your car ?

For my part the situation as exactly as per my post - it's easy not to listen to the BBC's output by choice. That's my position and it's an accurate description of how I don't watch or listen to the BBC's biased output by choice. Your belief or otherwise changes nothing.

My radios at home and in the car aren't tuned to BBC stations so that helps.

As also mentioned previously, it's possible to watch or listen where there's no choice, in public places and friends' cars when given a lift, but then that's not "by (my) choice" as the choice is somebody else's.

You sound a little too intensely involved.

If the BBC produces an excellent Attenborough documentary,, do you deliberately avoid it, just because it's the BBC whom have produced it?

"Damn you lefty Penguins!"

That raised a dry smile. Thank you.

[TTwiggy]

Moonhawk said:

TTwiggy said:

While those are valid points, it's an argument that could be made across any industry. Employment terms and conditions are rarely based on a pure meritocracy principle and some people will always manage to secure far higher remuneration than others for much the same job.

True - but in other industries the discrepancy is rarely so wide for similar roles.

Professional sport would be a close comparison. Players within the same team in pro football or rugby can be on vastly differing salaries. The BBC is in the entertainment industry - regular rules do not apply.

[Dindoit]

C70R said:

I saw this:

turbobloke said:

It's easy not to watch or listen to BBC propaganda ... a reminder why not watching their continually partisan output

Then I saw this:

turbobloke said:

turbobloke
79,854 posts
179 months

Then I realised that debating was probably a waste of time.
Does anyone actually talk like this in the real world? Or is it just for effect on the internet?

15 posts a day, every day, for 15yrs. Half of those about the evil BBC.

[turbobloke]

Dindoit said:

C70R said:

I saw this:

turbobloke said:

It's easy not to watch or listen to BBC propaganda ... a reminder why not watching their continually partisan output

Then I saw this:

turbobloke said:

turbobloke
79,854 posts
179 months

Then I realised that debating was probably a waste of time.
Does anyone actually talk like this in the real world? Or is it just for effect on the internet?

15 posts a day, every day, for 15yrs. Half of those about the evil BBC.

Not quite, and it's not about me anyway - but thanks for considering me worthy of your esteemed attention, it's most flattering.

As my former RAF colleagues once said, the closer you are to the target the thicker the flak. so I'm hitting bullseyes obviously with little else beyond infantile personal angles by way of reply.

Max PH time is hardly ever more than 20 mins per day, and most enjoyable it is.

Max BBC time by choice is 0 mins per day, also most enjoyable.

[Murph7355]

TTwiggy said:

They may not be competing for ratings but they are competing in the same market place for staff. That should be obvious.

Their own pay scales prove that there is talent available for less than 2.5m/1.8m/0.5m/even 0.25m.

Why do they feel the need to pay 2.5m if not for viewing/listening figure competition?

[Huff]

I don't pay the license fee, haven't owned a telly in 15yrs and don't miss it/don't know when I'd find time to watch it/not interested in iplayer/reruns.

I do use & enjoy BBC R3 though a lot; I'd be willing to pay the fee just to support that alone. But don't have to.

No, I don't have a blanket answer to 'license' either, other than a broadly supporting a subscription-based service.

[technodup]

[redacted]

[turbobloke]

[redacted]

[turbobloke]

[redacted]

[Cotty]

C70R said:

iPlayer allows you to download BBC programmes and watch online, and there is (I believe) an iPlayer app on the Xbox too (meaning you could watch live or on catchup if you chose).

If I did that I would need a licence and for the amount I would use it, its not worth it. Cheaper the buy the odd BBC DVD once a year, like Planet Earth 2 £8 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Planet-Earth-DVD-David-At...

[Hayek]

[redacted]

[threespires]

I'm really happy to pay the license fee and fund the BBC. Superb value.