Another Take on Lost Channels

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Nugget

You 'pay twice' because you have chosen to get digital television - I know that I bang on about this every time this comes up but, if you feel that you shouldn't have to pay additional costs for the TV you watch, just stick with terrestrial TV

Sorry but why should I go back to a medium which absolutely infuriated with terrestial insistence that every person loves soaps. I worked it out at one point 50 hours of soaps was transmitted a week. If they missed the pap it got repeated for several times and had a big sunday catch up. Not forget the saturation of reality pap like get me out here, idol etc. Once in a blue moon there is a decent film/prog but in general terms its pap.

The problem lies is the way the beeb treat the licence as bottomless pit. I would think it not far down the line the average tv monthly bill will be £200. The result many will pushed out from enjoying watching tv. When Tv first came out only the rich could afford such luxuries. Its getting to a point it will once again be a rich mans toy.

Its in the beebs best interest long term to accept licence fee is bordering to point people cannot afford it.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by mertle

Sorry but why should I go back to a medium which absolutely infuriated with terrestial insistence that every person loves soaps. I worked it out at one point 50 hours of soaps was transmitted a week. If they missed the pap it got repeated for several times and had a big sunday catch up. Not forget the saturation of reality pap like get me out here, idol etc. Once in a blue moon there is a decent film/prog but in general terms its pap.

The problem lies is the way the beeb treat the licence as bottomless pit. I would think it not far down the line the average tv monthly bill will be £200. The result many will pushed out from enjoying watching tv. When Tv first came out only the rich could afford such luxuries. Its getting to a point it will once again be a rich mans toy.

Its in the beebs best interest long term to accept licence fee is bordering to point people cannot afford it.

Nobody's saying that you should be go back to something that 'infuriated' you. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't complain about a system that you have chosen to 'buy into' - if you don't want to pay over and above the licence fee for TV, you don't have to. Anyway, as has been repeated ad nauseum, the licence fee also pays for the radio and internet services (amongst others), so it's not actually a massive fee when you take it all into account...

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Nugget

Nobody's saying that you should be go back to something that 'infuriated' you. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't complain about a system that you have chosen to 'buy into' - if you don't want to pay over and above the licence fee for TV, you don't have to. Anyway, as has been repeated ad nauseum, the licence fee also pays for the radio and internet services (amongst others), so it's not actually a massive fee when you take it all into account...

I not thinking it should be scraped but I just the if the government want us all off analogue they need to start giving back something in return for you doing so. Otherwise they will struggle to get everybody off analogue. I know friends and family who don't have any digital service at all. Refuse to budge stating why should they move. Its these people who the covernment going to have a hard time to convert.

What was the figure the beeb wanted.

[Tailor]

99% of the fee is TV and Radio, if I don't watch it, why should i pay for it.
This is from the Beebs website

• Television (eight network channels) (£6.04)
• Nations and English regions television and local radio (£1.72)
• BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 and Five Live (ten analogue and digital stations)(£1.12)
• Transmission and collection costs (£1.08)
• New media (36p)
• BBC jam (14p)
• Interactive TV (BBCi) (8p)

[mertle]

thanks for that very interesting to see breakdown costs. I know the Beeb tried to fund its digital via licence not sure if they were given government permission. Which I find the suggestion that we all should pay for there venture into freesat wrong.

It should be totally self invested from the sales of the system.

[handyman]

Originally Posted by Tailor

99% of the fee is TV and Radio, if I don't watch it, why should i pay for it.

• Television (eight network channels) (£6.04) BBC News, top gear and dragons den and watch dog are worth that alone.
• BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 and Five Live (ten analogue and digital stations)(£1.12) I listen to Chris Moyles on the way to work and Scott Mills on the way back so it's 3p a journey for me which is superb value for 30 mins entertainment.
• Transmission and collection costs (£1.08) How reliable is terrestrial broadcasting, clearly the money goes to good use.
• New media (36p) BBC News web site is excellent and the downloads of missed programs last year where awesome.
• BBC jam (14p) - Not sure what this is but if it's strwaberry flavoured the rpice seems cheap enough.
• Interactive TV (BBCi) (8p) A steal

[Action Jackson]

Regardless of whether or not the BBC provides good quality TV/radio that are worth the licence fee, the simple fact remains that we should be given a choice as to whether or not we want to watch/listen to these, not forced to do so just so we can have the legal right to own a TV.

[Tailor]

I don't see the topic as whether the content is worth the money but rather whether or not it should be compulsary to pay for the content. I paid for Sky Movies for a few months but found that the movies are repeated every night for weeks on end so I stopped paying for them. I'd like the same choice on the BBC's TV and Radio.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Tailor

I don't see the topic as whether the content is worth the money but rather whether or not it should be compulsary to pay for the content. I paid for Sky Movies for a few months but found that the movies are repeated every night for weeks on end so I stopped paying for them. I'd like the same choice on the BBC's TV and Radio.

My biggest gripe is being told that I am not allowed to own a TV unless I subscribe to the BBC i.e. give license fee.


This may have been fine in the days when it was only the BBC that was broadcasting, but this archaic law should not apply anymore.

Originally Posted by VirginMediaSucks

The licence fee is what.. ten times what Sky wanted for their basic channels?

It would be nice to pay for the channels and programmes you actually want. I object to paying for rubbish like EastEnders, for example. At least with the BBC you can get VOD for free and good things like the BBC News website.

My two cents worth.. the BBC should be a public service broadcaster first and foremost and not be in the business of relentlessly pursuing market share.

Can't you see the inherent contradiction in what you're saying? First you moan that you would prefer it if your licence fee was paying for things you actually want. Then you moan that the BBC is pursuing market share.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't by your book. Do you want them to pursue your share of the market by making stuff you want to watch or not?

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

Regardless of whether or not the BBC provides good quality TV/radio that are worth the licence fee, the simple fact remains that we should be given a choice as to whether or not we want to watch/listen to these, not forced to do so just so we can have the legal right to own a TV.

You misunderstand the whole concept of public service broadcasting. It's not surprising, as subscription based TV has become the norm in the UK, for the whole licence fee debate to become muddled up with whether it's fair to force people to pay for services they don't want, but the licence fee is not a subscription, it's a licence, just like the tax disc on your windscreen that entitles you to drive your car regardless of how many miles you drive, at what time of day, by whatever road, whatever the popularity of that road.

Except, of course, suggest replacing the current motoring taxation regime with a system of pricing based on use, and all hell breaks loose ... Not that I'm prejudging any opinion you might have on road pricing, but hopefully you get my point.

The Licence Fee supports the existence of the BBC in order to allow the BBC to ensure a consistent, high level of TV and radio broadcasting in the UK. They effectively set a bar which the commercial channels have then to aim at, rather than descending to the level of appalling trash.

Anyone who is in any doubt about what a totally commercial TV environment is like should go and spend a while in the USA. TV there is acres upon acres of utter dross with the occasional gem if you look hard enough. It's easy to think the US must be full of top quality stuff because over here we get a distillation of the best of it, but the truth is something else.

Even if you never watch a single BBC programme, view a single BBC webpage or listen to a minute of BBC radio (I have seen people on this forum who claim this, by the way, and I am shall we say extremely skeptical about how likely that is), the quality of the UK-produced content you do consume has been influenced by the presence of the BBC in the market. And that, IMO, is well worth paying £2.50 a week for.

[Tailor]

I don't see that you can compare a road tax licence to a TV licence.
Monies generated by road tax licences goes to the upkeep of the roads whereas the licence fee funds the BBC's programs. If the TV licence fee in someway maintained the transmission equipment that my TV utilised then it would be comparable but it doesn't. You could argue it did that very thing years ago but times have changed.

[mertle]

good post Chris T.

The only issue I have is I think if you pay a digital provider for you TV then the government must give a reduction as an incentive to go digital.

I think there going to be huge issue with this as the big switch off nears.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chris T

but the licence fee is not a subscription, it's a licence, just like the tax disc on your windscreen that entitles you to drive your car regardless of how many miles you drive, at what time of day, by whatever road, whatever the popularity of that road.

I don't see that analogy as being a very good one to be honest.


A tax disc allows you to drive on all UK roads and the money is used to fund construction/maintenance of all UK roads. The license fee money is for the BBC only, not all channels.


The BBC equivalent of the tax disc would be one that only allowed you to drive on all the motorways but none of the A or B roads.

Originally Posted by Tailor

I don't see that you can compare a road tax licence to a TV licence.
Monies generated by road tax licences goes to the upkeep of the roads whereas the licence fee funds the BBC's programs. If the TV licence fee in someway maintained the transmission equipment that my TV utilised then it would be comparable but it doesn't. You could argue it did that very thing years ago but times have changed.

The comparison was to show the difference between a service-based subscription (which the licence fee is not, regardless of how many people complain about paying dor something they 'don't use') and a flat fee regardless of usage, which the licence fee, and the Road Fund Licence, are.

However, seeing as you mention it, the BBC is spending your licence fee on a transmitter network that benefits more than just BBC programming - it's called Freeview.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

I don't see that analogy as being a very good one to be honest.

A tax disc allows you to drive on all UK roads and the money is used to fund construction/maintenance of all UK roads. The license fee money is for the BBC only, not all channels.

The BBC equivalent of the tax disc would be one that only allowed you to drive on all the motorways but none of the A or B roads.

So you would be in favour of a TV licence if the money raised by it was used to pay for public service broadcasting requirements on, say, ITV and Channel 5 as well, rather than exclusively on the BBC?

[c1rcle]

If only the quality argument actually held water, 99% of terrestrial broadcast programmes are now reality based mind numbing bollix of the lowest quality & aimed directly at those of limited intelligence who actually think they're getting value for money.

What the BBC need to do is scrap the license fee & make their channels subscription based like everyone else, then we'll see how many people actually want to watch them.