Another Take on Lost Channels

Now out of all the issues that I thought would be raised in the aftermath of the debacle of Sky v VM I really hadn't thought we would get ANOTHER anti BBC Licence fee thread.

Seems all angles are being explored all right.

So I can't watch Bones tonight..However I notice Eureka is being shown on Sci Fi.I think I'll take another look at that and see if they actually show the episodes in the right order this time.Something Sky are notorious for not doing doing.They did it with Firefly after all.

[concepttwenty20]

i miss the channels already

Originally Posted by york

I am a long time disgruntled payer of the unfair, biased and quite frankly appaulling attitude of the BBC and thier 'licence'.

You know YOU have to prove to THEM that your not using your TV to recieve broadcasted channels?

If you murder someone THEY have to prove that YOU committed the murder.

No, you don't. Where did you get that idea? You do not have to prove that you don't need a TV licence. If you don't have one, they have to prove that you've been using a TV without one in order to get you convicted.

You HAVE to let them into your own home so they can see for themselves that you are not using a TV to recieve broadcasted channels.

If you refuse they call the police who then MAKE you let them into your home to prove that you are not using a TV to recieve broadcasted channels.

No, you don't. TVL can *ask* to come into your house; you are not obliged to allow them in.

If they come back with a copper, it's because they have a warrant, which means they have gone to the trouble of persuading a magistrate to give them one, which means they were able to show evidence that it is likely you are using a TV without a licence.

This attitude they have is appauling, i remember 3 years ago seeing an advert on the side of a bus in Doncaster, it said '3 people living on burton road do not own a TV licence'.

Simple statement of fact. If those three people don't receive TV signals, where's the problem? Were the people identified and subjected to public ridicule by the advert?

And Chris T, i 'dont use' your car, should i have to pay for it?

If you have a car, you pay road tax, whether you drive 1,000 or 25,000 miles a year and whether you drive on congested roads at the rush hour or not. What on earth are you banging on about using my car for? Your random and pointless misquote (thoroughly out of context as well) renders it meaningless. I really can't be bothered reiterating the point here; hopefully anyone who has got this far has read it already.

The BBC do not provide ANY content that interests me, NONE! You say they have set the standard? reeeallly? thats because they were the only ones setting any standard when the draconian licence fee was introduced.

That's just ... wrong. They didn't just set standards back in the 1930s, they still do today. If you want an example of good quality BBC telly being produced today, you might enjoy a couple of hours in front of the CBeebies channel. My son tells me Nina and the Neurons is pretty good.

In a recent BBC poll (yes thats right a poll by the BBC) to find out how many licence fee payers would continue to pay for the licence if it was based upon a subscription, the result was 65% would still pay the fee, that 35% of almost this entire country that do not want the BBC service.

OK ... so you haven't studied statistics yet. Last time I looked in a maths text book, 65% support is (almost) 2:1 in favour. That's a pretty hefty majority. Furthermore, the question (assuming you quoted it properly) was 'would you still pay the fee', not 'do you want the service'. You can't conclude that the 35% who don't want to pay a subscription for the BBC would therefore not like to have the BBC service.

The BBC is on borrowed time, my generation have grown up with the era of commercial TV, now ondemand is getting more popular, websites like youtube.com and other similiar providers are becoming more popular through convenience and instant choice, soon my generation will be in charge of things at the top and the BBC will find themselves without any support due to thier mightier than thou attitude.

I will be throwing a party on that day in support of choice and freedom.

If you think Youtube is any kind of substitute for the BBC (or any other broadcast channel) then the day you take your rightful place at the top (assuming anybody is insane enough to put you there) is the day I emigrate. Do you have no standards at all?

Incidentally, ITV started in 1955 so everybody aged 52 and under grew up in the era of commercial TV. That would include most of the people currently running the BBC.

If the BBC believe they are providing a world class service then they should put it to the test and become a subscription based service and if they were responcible with the money they recieve they would not be spending millions of pounds on changing thier logo (if i remember rightly they changed thier black BBC logo to a coloured BBC logo with a line underneath, then they changed it back) or spending millions of pounds paying for taxi's for thier staff.

Oh why do I bother ...

Can you give me one compelling reason - just one - why the BBC should become a subscription service when its viewing figures would more than amply support it on advertising revenue? Do you see ITV thinking about going subscription-only? No. Do you see Channel 4 thinking about it? No. Quite the opposite actually, they have realised that unless you're broadcasting to quite a narrow niche audience, you are better off going free-to-air and surviving on ad revenue. That's why E4 and then FilmFour have come *off* subscription and are now free.

To suggest that the only alternative for the BBC is subscription is absolute fallacy. The preferred route would be to be a free-to-air commercial broadcaster, which would do nothing to help the rest of the industry because the BBC would be competing for a limited amount of available advertising spend. A commercial BBC would not be a subscription service, it would be a successful ad-funded service, much to the detriment of its competitors.

Or can you think of another reason why the main commercial broadcasters actually *support* the BBC's current funding model? No? Thought not. It's because they would rather compete with the Beeb for viewing figures alone and not have to worry whether Unilever is going to pay for adverts during Corrie or Eastenders.

Oh and this dribble about how TV would be so much worse without the BBC ... we will never know, cos the BBC were the only service available and quite frankly if everyone was on an level playing field, us the customer would be able to CHOOSE the best of the TV services available, like Sky or Virgin who both provide services that I want, not what im MADE to have or pay for.

As I said earlier ... anyone who doubts the likely results of a purely commercial TV environment should spend a while in the US, trying to find the decent programmes in amongst the hours and hours of unrelenting rubbish. Don't be fooled by the line-up of quality US shows you see on British TV. It is a very small selection of the whole and nowhere near enough to fill an entire schedule.

As for choice - you do have the choice. Use your remote control to choose whichever channel you want. Just as long as you keep paying your £2.50 a week to help keep the entire industry at the top of its game.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Now out of all the issues that I thought would be raised in the aftermath of the debacle of Sky v VM I really hadn't thought we would get ANOTHER anti BBC Licence fee thread.

Seems all angles are being explored all right.

So I can't watch Bones tonight..However I notice Eureka is being shown on Sci Fi.I think I'll take another look at that and see if they actually show the episodes in the right order this time.Something Sky are notorious for not doing doing.They did it with Firefly after all.

C'mon Coggy, it has been a couple of months since the last one - we've been overdue by at least a month

Anyway, you know that they showed Firefly out of order just so we'd all go out and buy the boxset Mind you, I bet that dastardly BBC had something to do it

[Barton71]

Originally Posted by Taffer

We, the British public, may be paying over the odds for BBC via the license fee, but isn't thet the British way? Look around and you will find CDs, DVDs, PCs and equipment, consoles, etc., etc., etc. are always more expensive than in America. So how much extra are we paying for movies and American TV content via Sky and Virgin Media than the Americans pay for the same items via their equivalent feeds?

I cant believe the anti-TV licence views on this thread. We aren't paying over the odds for a TV licence. It is excellent value for money. Look at everything we get for £131.50. 8 TV channels + BBCi channels, 10 radio channels + 45 local and regional radio stations, bbc.co.uk which brings us news and sport reports which are second to none, online TV shows, entertainment reports, educational sites, public information sites, reviews, interviews and much much more. We also get outstanding TV shows such as Life on Mars, Walking With Dinosaurs, Little Britain, Dr Who, and imports like Band of Brothers, and Heroes coming soon. All of that advert free. You cant argue with it. How much would all that cost if you were to get it from Sky? It would be a damn site more that £11/month.

[Taffer]

Barton71 - sorry I didn't make it clear enough; I put "may be paying over the odds" as in might or might not be. There has been a lot of discussion lately about the price increase of the license and my worry is that there are too many politicians and businessmen getting involved that don't need to be, which in my mind means more non-effective payments to "advisors", "co-producer manager executive project coordinators", (you get my drift).

OFCOM on the whole seem to do a reasonable job - cover what they need to and leave well alone when it is not part of their remit, so I would prefer to see a part of them, and only them, cover all things like the Virgin media/Sky issues, License fees, and the like; independent, fare and in the public's interest.

I agree that BBC do some great shows but I do not want to see License fee funds that go into making them reduced so that another unnecessary person has to be paid obscene amounts.

[dragon]

Personally i think the bbc should just show commercials like everyone else does

If people are quite prepared to tolerate ads on every other channel what difference will ads on the BBC really make.



They get their money we don't have to pay the tv license.


Mind you i don't pay it anyway.... yet (someone else in our hours pays ours )

[mdwh2]

I don't mind paying for the TV licence, but I strongly object to the way it is enforced - people without TVs are routinely harrassed and sent misleading, threatening letters demanding they pay; they don't seem to acknowledge that some people might not have a TV.

And I got the threatening letters even though I _did_ have a licence.

---------- Post added at 00:08 ---------- Previous post was at 00:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Barton71

I cant believe the anti-TV licence views on this thread. We aren't paying over the odds for a TV licence. It is excellent value for money. Look at everything we get for £131.50. 8 TV channels + BBCi channels, 10 radio channels + 45 local and regional radio stations, bbc.co.uk which brings us news and sport reports which are second to none, online TV shows, entertainment reports, educational sites, public information sites, reviews, interviews and much much more. We also get outstanding TV shows such as Life on Mars, Walking With Dinosaurs, Little Britain, Dr Who, and imports like Band of Brothers, and Heroes coming soon. All of that advert free. You cant argue with it. How much would all that cost if you were to get it from Sky? It would be a damn site more that £11/month.

The issue isn't whether it's good value or not, the issue is whether everyone with a TV should have to pay, whether they watch it or not.

Originally Posted by Barton71

I cant believe the anti-TV licence views on this thread. We aren't paying over the odds for a TV licence. It is excellent value for money.

IMO - Yes we are, and no it's not.

Originally Posted by Barton71

Look at everything we get for £131.50. 8 TV channels + BBCi channels, 10 radio channels + 45 local and regional radio stations, bbc.co.uk which brings us news and sport reports which are second to none, online TV shows, entertainment reports, educational sites, public information sites, reviews, interviews and much much more. We also get outstanding TV shows such as Life on Mars, Walking With Dinosaurs, Little Britain, Dr Who, and imports like Band of Brothers, and Heroes coming soon. All of that advert free. You cant argue with it. How much would all that cost if you were to get it from Sky? It would be a damn site more that £11/month.

Wow .... except I don't use 95% of those

(Heroes btw is already on UK Sci-Fi).

[sas1979]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

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.

Exactly, if Virgin or sky were broadcasting in our homes and wouldnt let us remove the services and continues to charge us what do you think the reaction would be?

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Tod

I think the BBC are fantastic, I listen to their radio stations, use BBCi, watch their TV stations, and think it is wonderful they have no adverts.
It will be a sad day if it was any other way.

But is it worth £11 a month just to have a few channels and radio stations that you 'sometimes' use that don't have adverts?


And they do have adverts. Normally for their own shows (not as bad as other channels, granted) but adverts all the same.

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

But is it worth £11 a month just to have a few channels and radio stations that you 'sometimes' use that don't have adverts?


And they do have adverts. Normally for their own shows (not as bad as other channels, granted) but adverts all the same.

Yes, but not in the middle of the programmes, and just after the start of the programme (Heroes, Lost, 24, ER, all have 20 minutes of ads in a one hour programme).

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

But is it worth £11 a month just to have a few channels and radio stations that you 'sometimes' use that don't have adverts?

Absolutely, particularly when you take into account the fact that I pay 42 quid a month for Sky and it sometimes seems like it has more adverts than programmes...

[c1rcle]

The Adverts really get up my nose at times, I've noticed on some channels that there's an advert break in the middle of the opening titles, WTF?

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Yes, but not in the middle of the programmes, and just after the start of the programme (Heroes, Lost, 24, ER, all have 20 minutes of ads in a one hour programme).

I appreciate that the American shows are the worst. That's why I never watch them at the time of airing, but download them later and watch them 'advert-free'.

Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the BBC programming (Planet Earth, Dr Who, Life on Mars), there is no doubt they are the best quality broadcaster out there I love the fact that there are no adverts in their programmes, but I don't think it is worth £11 per month and I think I should have the choice as to whether or not I want to pay for them.