Another Take on Lost Channels

[mertle]

Originally Posted by 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.

rename them BBC 1 Eastenders.

ITV coronation street

They are just so heavily soaped.

[Tailor]

If you only watch DVD's on your telly then you don't need a TV Licence. However if you only watch Cable TV then you do need one.
This shows that if I am to watch any broadcasted TV then I must also pay the BBC for theirs whether I want it or not. This was acceptable to me in the 70's when TV was provided to all via an aerial and the majority of TV was provided by the BBC but times have changed and this is no longer the case.

Incendently Chris you're not so much responding to the topic but rather ripping other peoples responses, there's a difference!

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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?

No.

ITV is for people who have lost the will to live and Channel 5 is a painful repressed memory that I wished that you hadn't brought up (in my world it doesn't exist).

Extra funding for Channel 4 would be nice though, although Channel 4 manages to create quality output and still be completely self sufficient.

Point is, we should have a choice as to what we want to watch and therefore pay for. Not have some license fee foisted onto us, simply because 'that's the way it's always been'.

[c1rcle]

This might be a stupid question but does VirgiNTL pay the BBC for the channels they provide? if so why should I have to pay twice?

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

No.

ITV is for people who have lost the will to live and Channel 5 is a painful repressed memory that I wished that you hadn't brought up (in my world it doesn't exist).

Extra funding for Channel 4 would be nice though, although Channel 4 manages to create quality output and still be completely self sufficient.

Point is, we should have a choice as to what we want to watch and therefore pay for. Not have some license fee foisted onto us, simply because 'that's the way it's always been'.

I think you can't have read my previous posts. The licence fee doesn't exist simply because it always has. The BBC's charter, and therefore the licence fee, is subject to renewal by Parliament every 10 years or so. Each renewal follows a detailed analysis of whether the British TV industry still has a place for public service broadcasting finded by compulsory levy. So far, the answer has always been 'it still does', not 'it always has'.

You are also ignoring the point that the licence fee is not a subscription. If you genuinely want to argue a case for its abolition, you are going to have to make a case against what it actually is, and what it actually stands for, and not simply rail against a straw man of your own invention. It's easy to knock down your own parody of something but ultimately it's not going to get you anywhere, and in this case it's not going to save you your £2.50.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by c1rcle

This might be a stupid question but does VirgiNTL pay the BBC for the channels they provide? if so why should I have to pay twice?

No they don't.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Tailor

If you only watch DVD's on your telly then you don't need a TV Licence. However if you only watch Cable TV then you do need one.
This shows that if I am to watch any broadcasted TV then I must also pay the BBC for theirs whether I want it or not. This was acceptable to me in the 70's when TV was provided to all via an aerial and the majority of TV was provided by the BBC but times have changed and this is no longer the case.

Incendently Chris you're not so much responding to the topic but rather ripping other peoples responses, there's a difference!

not quite true if your house has any tuner which recieves a signal you must have a licence if you use it or not. They cannot force you to have one if you have a computer monitor linked to a dvd player and watch only movies. You will not need a licence. However then if you have any radio's you need a radio licence. Guess what conspiracy is they don't exist anymore. Black & white licences don't exist as an alternative. So guess what you will still need a colour licence if we only have a radio. whether you could argue you should get a blind discount.

Originally Posted by Tailor

If you only watch DVD's on your telly then you don't need a TV Licence. However if you only watch Cable TV then you do need one.
This shows that if I am to watch any broadcasted TV then I must also pay the BBC for theirs whether I want it or not. This was acceptable to me in the 70's when TV was provided to all via an aerial and the majority of TV was provided by the BBC but times have changed and this is no longer the case.

As I posted above in response to AJ, the BBC is not a subscription broadcaster and the licence fee is not a subscription. If you want to mount an effective challenge to it, you have to argue against what it actually is, not the way you would like to caricature it.

Incendently Chris you're not so much responding to the topic but rather ripping other peoples responses, there's a difference!

Hardly 'ripping' .... but if you aren't prepared to have someone disagree with you, and say so, then might I suggest a discussion forum is a dangerous place for you to be!

[Tailor]

Originally Posted by mertle

not quite true if your house has any tuner which recieves a signal you must have a licence if you use it or not. They cannot force you to have one if you have a computer monitor linked to a dvd player and watch only movies.

They may have changed, I looked that one up from the BBC website before stating it...

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I think you can't have read my previous posts. The licence fee doesn't exist simply because it always has. The BBC's charter, and therefore the licence fee, is subject to renewal by Parliament every 10 years or so. Each renewal follows a detailed analysis of whether the British TV industry still has a place for public service broadcasting finded by compulsory levy. So far, the answer has always been 'it still does', not 'it always has'.

You are also ignoring the point that the licence fee is not a subscription. If you genuinely want to argue a case for its abolition, you are going to have to make a case against what it actually is, and what it actually stands for, and not simply rail against a straw man of your own invention. It's easy to knock down your own parody of something but ultimately it's not going to get you anywhere, and in this case it's not going to save you your £2.50.

I agree, it's obviously not a subscription, because by definition a subscription is "a payment for a service or product for a given period of time". This is clearly not the case with the BBC licence fee, as it is mandatory by law and cannot be cancelled at any time (unless you give up your TV).

Back when the BBC was the only broadcasting corporation, and TV advertising money was an alien concept, then I could see how a compulsory licence fee was justified (people obviously have to pay for entertainment). This is not the case in a modern media society, where the consumer has many choices as to what he or she watches. Why should they be bound by law to fund a corporation which they may never use?

Your argument about the BBC setting a benchmark and how that in itself justifies the licence fee is ridiculous. The level of competition should drive the various media outlets to step up their quality of product, so that we 'choose' to spend our money to watch them. But the BBC is lazy and doesn't want to have to compete, they just want their guaranteed regular pot of money.

[Tailor]

Originally Posted by Chris T

As I posted above in response to AJ, the BBC is not a subscription broadcaster and the licence fee is not a subscription. If you want to mount an effective challenge to it, you have to argue against what it actually is, not the way you would like to caricature it.

I am challenging whether there is a need anymore.
Like you stated in a previous post, it is reviewed every decade by government. I think it's time for a change and they should become a subscription service

Originally Posted by Chris T

Hardly 'ripping' .... but if you aren't prepared to have someone disagree with you, and say so, then might I suggest a discussion forum is a dangerous place for you to be!

Well actually you had left me alone at that point but I see I am getting it now as well ...lol

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

I agree, it's obviously not a subscription, because by definition a subscription is "a payment for a service or product for a given period of time". This is clearly not the case with the BBC licence fee, as it is mandatory by law and cannot be cancelled at any time (unless you give up your TV).

Back when the BBC was the only broadcasting corporation, and TV advertising money was an alien concept, then I could see how a compulsory licence fee was justified (people obviously have to pay for entertainment). This is not the case in a modern media society, where the consumer has many choices as to what he or she watches. Why should they be bound by law to fund a corporation which they may never use?

Your argument about the BBC setting a benchmark and how that in itself justifies the licence fee is ridiculous. The level of competition should drive the various media outlets to step up their quality of product, so that we 'choose' to spend our money to watch them. But the BBC is lazy and doesn't want to have to compete, they just want their guaranteed regular pot of money.

Just a couple of brief thoughts .....

1. I never said that setting standards 'in itself' justified the licence fee. It is part of the equation but not all of it. Clearly it's not all of it as the Charter process is a very lengthy and detailed one.

2. The BBC (or some people within it at any rate) might well be lazy and enjoying a gravy train, but the BBC doesn't award itself its Charter and it doesn't set the level of the licence fee. Parliament does.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Tailor

They may have changed, I looked that one up from the BBC website before stating it...

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.

I wonder how many they have agreed don't need a licence. thanks for the find though. Seems a very small carrot.

Just worried about news breaking about petrol. My car been juddering for 2 days. I am in Grimsby and bought the petrol a week ago.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chris T

2. The BBC (or some people within it at any rate) might well be lazy and enjoying a gravy train, but the BBC doesn't award itself its Charter and it doesn't set the level of the licence fee. Parliament does.

I'd be very surprised if the government is completely objective when it comes to reviewing the need for the BBC licence fee.

With such an age old institution as the BBC, and the fact that the BBC is well revered around the world, the corporation itself has now become a national icon of pride (we're the best in the world etc). Of course the government is going to keep its funding in place. Or maybe I'm being cynical.

Actually, when I think about it, the BBC is like the queen, except I have at least been entertained by and enjoyed watching the BBC at some point in my life.

[Nugget]

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.

Well, taking this into account, surely you're paying twice for the roads then, seeing as Council Tax goes towards the roads as well

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------

Originally Posted by 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.

But there's already a huge incentive to go digital - if you don't, you won't have access to TV after the analogue switch-off...