tv licence guess what ?

Originally Posted by Graham

I would think that the vast majority of US TV output is an overwhelming argument for keeping at least *one* broadcaster that doesn't rely on either advertising revenue or subscriptions to pay its way!!

A very good point - the US produces some good stuff but you have to either buy the video or watch it on UK terrestrial TV to actually enjoy it!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Graham

I would think that the vast majority of US TV output is an overwhelming argument for keeping at least *one* broadcaster that doesn't rely on either advertising revenue or subscriptions to pay its way!!

Good point Graham.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Graham

I would think that the vast majority of US TV output is an overwhelming argument for keeping at least *one* broadcaster that doesn't rely on either advertising revenue or subscriptions to pay its way!!

But the output of HBO - things like from the earth to the moon and the 2nd world war 'band of brothers' thing, along with all the discovery channels show that commercial TV can produce good products. There also appears to be less of a political correctness about productions, friends could be produced with an all white cast, compare to this life, will and grace can have outragously camp gay characters. Anything UK produced seems to have political correctness built into the casting, sometimes at the expense of the expense of the jokes, for example the crouches http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pre...crouches.shtml that was written by Ian Pattison and according to many just did not reflect how a black family would interact, a potentially funny comedy (he also wrote Rab C Nesbit and more http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/ta...ison_ian.shtml but just did not get black comedy in the same way Lenny Henry did.

However these are expensive(ish) subscription channels with highly developed commercial arms (there are discovery channel shops now).

I'm no big fan of Discovery, too much of its output is 'dumbed down' for the mass audience instead of tackling difficult issues head-on like Horizon.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Defiant

Thats great coming from you. You haven't come up with one decent argument for keeping this unjust stealth tax

Then I suggest you re-read the thread and see what I've had to say.

Originally Posted by dellwear

Then I suggest you re-read the thread and see what I've had to say.

I've read it and there's nothing their that justify's a licence fee in this day and age. If you dont want sky you dont pay for it. If you dont want Cable you dont pay. If you dont wont anything to do with the BBC you have to pay for the people that do want it

Originally Posted by Defiant

I've read it and there's nothing their that justify's a licence fee in this day and age.

OK, so that means you think there was a day and age when a licence fee was justified. When was that, and why was it justified?

Originally Posted by Defiant

If you dont want sky you dont pay for it. If you dont want Cable you dont pay. If you dont wont anything to do with the BBC you have to pay for the people that do want it

You really don't get it do you? The BBC is not just a television station that you subscribe to if you happen to like the content. It is an organisation that maintains quality in British TV by:

1. Making programmes that are driven by quality, not by appeal to advertising revenue.
2. Encouraging new talent in acting, writing and production (it can do this because it can afford to take risks that commercial organisations can't)
3. Pioneering development in technical standards (the world's first high-definition TV service in 1936(?), development of the NICAM broadcasting standard, at the forefront of bringing 16:9 widescreen broadcasts to the UK, and more).
As such, it provides a service to every British TV viewer, whether or not they actually watch any BBC TV.

Originally Posted by towny

OK, so that means you think there was a day and age when a licence fee was justified. When was that, and why was it justified?

Simple in the early years of Television

Originally Posted by towny

You really don't get it do you? The BBC is not just a television station that you subscribe to if you happen to like the content. It is an organisation that maintains quality in British TV by:

1. Making programmes that are driven by quality, not by appeal to advertising revenue.
2. Encouraging new talent in acting, writing and production (it can do this because it can afford to take risks that commercial organisations can't)
3. Pioneering development in technical standards (the world's first high-definition TV service in 1936(?), development of the NICAM broadcasting standard, at the forefront of bringing 16:9 widescreen broadcasts to the UK, and more).
As such, it provides a service to every British TV viewer, whether or not they actually watch any BBC TV.

Do you really think I'm interested. Do you think the sun shine's outta their arse so much the private sector just can't compete with them. Sorry but your talking utter rubbish. The licence fee just gives the BBC a licence of there own to print money

[Boom]

Originally Posted by towny

Not at all. Go and have a look at the statistics on the page I linked to. As C4, then satellite, then C5 became available, BBC1 and ITV lost audience share, ITV most of all. BBC2 has remained almost completely constant, so it's audience share relative to the available choice has increased. BBC1, meanwhile, has gone from the second most popular TV channel in the UK to the most popular.

As for whether people can afford the licence, it amounts to a direct debit payment of £11 a month. I'm paying NTL £18 a month for the Base Pack and anyone who takes the family pack and any movies or sport can easily be spending £30 or £40 a month on TV. Are you really saying that £11 a month is causing such financial hardship?

Obviously that was cheek in mouth, but that's because I can afford it, perhaps unbelievably for yourself, others can't? I'm sure there are plenty of ppl (ppl in the 50-75 range, isn't 75 when ppl get it for free?) who can't afford it and do watch more broadcasting on the terrestial channels.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Defiant

Do you really think I'm interested. Do you think the sun shine's outta their arse so much the private sector just can't compete with them. Sorry but your talking utter rubbish. The licence fee just gives the BBC a licence of there own to print money

In terms of Research and Development, the commercial TV companies, I really can't see how the Commercial TV stations do compete.

Unless you know different?

Originally Posted by Defiant

Simple in the early years of Television

And why was it justified back then? The USA has never had a licence fee. Why was there a time when it was ok for us to have one and for the USA to not have one?

Do you really think I'm interested.

Yes, given that you have posted in this thread 14 times (that's more than anyone else except me, and I'm definitely interested).

Do you think the sun shine's outta their arse so much the private sector just can't compete with them. Sorry but your talking utter rubbish. The licence fee just gives the BBC a licence of there own to print money

And thus spake the man down the pub, so he must be right.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Defiant

I've read it and there's nothing their that justify's a licence fee in this day and age. If you dont want sky you dont pay for it. If you dont want Cable you dont pay. If you dont wont anything to do with the BBC you have to pay for the people that do want it

Hmm, you raise an interesting point. "If you don't want cable you don't pay for it."

What is cable? Cable is a means of distribution, just as Satelite is. Both require maintainance and support, as do the numerous broadcast transmitters that send the terrestrial signals around this country in such high quality. Who should pay for those? The users of those signals, or everybody? Part of your licence fee goes to pay for the transmission of all the terrestrial signals, ITV C4 five, and all the DTT broadcasts also.

You buy road tax to use the roads, why not TV tax to pick up the VHF broadcasts?

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Defiant

Simple in the early years of Television

So now TV is risk free? No government support is needed? If it is risk free, why have Grananda and Carlton merged?

Originally Posted by Defiant

Do you really think I'm interested. Do you think the sun shine's outta their arse so much the private sector just can't compete with them. Sorry but your talking utter rubbish. The licence fee just gives the BBC a licence of there own to print money

And maybe try new televisual approaches, would startrek have come to be without Dr Who forerunning it or would SciFi have been too risky for a commercial outfit. Would the UK be a place where people come to make movies without the skills and training that the BBC provides? Would the private companies carry out as much training?

At least with the licence fee, it does what it says on the tin, you pay a fee, it goes (less collection costs and enforcement) to the BBC who spend it relatively well on television, radio and multimedia. In addition they capitalise on their archive to supplement this income and promote the past present and future of british television.

Now petrol tax and road tax, if only this all went on transport solutions (not just road, but rail, busses etc, we would not have the congestion we do, we would have a reliable consistently financed rail infrastructure (probably building maglev trains to glasgow).

If only national insurance all went to pensions and healthcare, we would have a state pension scheme that we could be proud of on the world stage.

Instead these are alternate revenue generation schemes, be gratefull that your licence fee does not go partly to central govt coffers.

[cjmillsnun]

Kronas,

When you look at the (compared to just about every foreign country) HIGH QUALITY output of all of our terrestial tv channels (include Freeview) then the small sacrifice of £121 a YEAR (that is only £2.33 a week) that restricts the advertising for the majority of people in this country to the small number of commercial stations, means that

a) the cost of advertising on TV is relatively low (but is set so that ITV and the other commercial stations just earn enough)

b) We get impartial news cover (remember that) - listen to BBC radio news on Radio 4 or on 5 Live or watch the news on BBC 4- Instead of Murdoch's populist xenophobic drivel.

c) We get 8 TV channels that provide a public service (with the possible exception of BBC parliament.)

d) We get 8 National Radio stations and countless local radio stations (all without advertisements)

e) There are high quality documentaries and informative programmes (eg Panorama and Horizon)

This is bloody good value for money. Especially as they pay for $ky, NTL and Telewest have them on their service.

The TV licence isn't a tax, because the BBC is NOT a government department (which leads me back to their impartiality)

[downquark1]

Look at sky, you pay a subscription much more than £121 a year AND they have plenty of advertisements.