View Full Version : White Paper on BBC published.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4804044.stm
Nothing earth shattering really
- Entertainment a top priority but don't chase ratings or copy successful shows from other channels
Licence fee will remain until 2016
BBC governors will be scrapped, replaced by a trust more accountable to licence fee payers.
Keep traditional aims to "inform, educate and entertain", but the government has set it six new purposes:
-Sustaining citizenship and civil society
-Promoting education
-Stimulating creativity
-Reflecting the identity of the UK's nations, regions and communities
-Bringing the world to the UK and the UK to the world
-Building digital Britain
Tessa Jowell's : "The BBC should continue to take fun seriously, ingraining entertainment into all its services," she said.
Does that mean having in-depth reports of ballroom dancing scandals on Panorama rather than investigations of political mis-deeds?
Uncle Nick
15-03-2006, 10:35
but the government has set it six new purposes:
-Nebulous
-Vague
-Bland
-Buzzword
-Cosy
-Gravy Train
Can I vote for 7) Make TV programmes?
lurker452
16-03-2006, 13:41
The licence fee remaining until 2016! They should get rid of it as soon as the complete terrestrial shut down happens. Once everybody is Digital they have two choices...
i) people can subscribe to the Beeb like Sky.
or
ii) the BBC could be funded by advertising revenue.
iii) then the quality of programme making will end up like sky and itv.
I would rather not have that. (though I appreciate the choice debate)
lurker452
16-03-2006, 15:22
What quality of programming are you talking about? EastEnders on four times a week or perhaps the usual bland dramas they make? Of course I'm excluding spooks. However considering how much money they take in the programming is ****** poor. I admit they make good documentaries which is great if you want to watch that sort of thing.
When you think how much it costs verses the benefit/value the return is poor. I Admit Sky makes complete crap but at least they import quality series from abroad and give much higher value for money. I believe they could easily make the same old tat and provide the same awful service on advertising revenue alone. In point of fact they may even improve as they would have to go for higher ratings.
What quality of programming are you talking about? EastEnders on four times a week or perhaps the usual bland dramas they make? Of course I'm excluding spooks. However considering how much money they take in the programming is ****** poor. I admit they make good documentaries which is great if you want to watch that sort of thing.
When you think how much it costs verses the benefit/value the return is poor. I Admit Sky makes complete crap but at least they import quality series from abroad and give much higher value for money. I believe they could easily make the same old tat and provide the same awful service on advertising revenue alone. In point of fact they may even improve as they would have to go for higher ratings.
That's simply choice. And there will always be things you don't want to watch.
Do you really want me to point out all the quality programming that the BBC is responsible for?
Right from Edge of Darkness through to Planet Earth (which was an early adopter of HD originated footage on the Panasonic 720p varicam Camera.)
I'm sorry but Sky's own programming doesn't compare.
There is all the technical side to the BBC that can't be taken for granted, the launch and implementation of freeview, the quality of their digi-streams over Sky, their embracing of widescreen way before the other channels, their web profile and functionallity, their multi-casts. The integration of web+tv interaction programming.
I think all that is worth £126.
Sky for me is(was) just £400 a year worth of channel swapping, oh and CCTV footage.
I've just done some very vague maths, I think I use 20hrs a week of BBC services on average. That's about 12p an hour. So it cost me 12p to watch Apprentice the other night.
I'm okay with that.
DeadYankee
16-03-2006, 16:51
BBC is a bargain. I basically only watch BBC2 and BBC4 and I'd happily pay more than the current licence fee in order to do so.
I'm happy to pay the £120 for the BBC News web site and Test Match Special ;)
With all the other stuff too it's a bargain, however the way the fee is currently implemented/collected is a load of cobblers, detector vans my arse ;). But I'm not sure what the best solution to that is since most freeview boxes/TVs don't have any kind of card slot to enable subscription services.
Can I vote for 7) Make TV programmes?
Get yer priorities right, lad! It's 7) Doctor Who ;)
pandaboy
16-03-2006, 18:09
Surely the biggest illustration of the advantages of a public service broadcaster is the difference between the BBC Radio network and their commercial competitors?
Even if I'm watching C4, say, as soon as the adverts come on it's straight across to BBC 1, 2, 3 or 4, because anything, and I mean *anything* they've got on has to be more useful to my overall wellbeing than adverts (usually being blasted at twice the volume of the programmes they're in between as well).
Advertising is a blight on our civilization and those who work in it have forfeited the right to be considered human beings in my book. ;)
Apart from Cillet Bang obviously.
ph
andybhoy
16-03-2006, 18:18
I think all that is worth £126.
And I don't. I'd be happy to get rid of it, and let you pay a fairer price.
I'd happily pay more so the whingers who claim to use no BBC services can all shut the hell up :)
Just treat it as a tax for pities sake ... we're all used to moaning about having to pay "stealth taxes" for services we don't use... So why is this one any different.
It is just a public service which could be replaced by a private service but we have to pay to support it.
I can send my kids to private school... I use private health instead of NHS... But I still have to pay for the state supplied service as well.
andybhoy
17-03-2006, 09:41
I'd happily pay more so the whingers who claim to use no BBC services can all shut the hell up :)
Just treat it as a tax for pities sake ... we're all used to moaning about having to pay "stealth taxes" for services we don't use... So why is this one any different.
It is just a public service which could be replaced by a private service but we have to pay to support it.
I can send my kids to private school... I use private health instead of NHS... But I still have to pay for the state supplied service as well.
YAWN. (re: "whingers")
YAWN. (re: "whingers")
YAWN (re: "YAWN")
And I don't. I'd be happy to get rid of it, and let you pay a fairer price.
Would it be fairer?
It may then be less fair to those who then couldn't afford it. And as the BBC has a greater remit than just being an entertainment provider, I would say that would be a bad move.
The (un)free market just screws some things up, I think that broadcasting is one of them. But, I take your point.
Moving the BBC to an advertisement service wouldn't help ; the one thing I use my Sky+ box for more than anything else is to whizz past the adverts in C4 and Sky programmes. (I never watch ITV and very very rarely watch C5).
As soon as viable technology for a "micropayment" system is put in place, the better - you want to watch tonight's Eastenders, you pay 25 pence for it (or whatever is decided to be a fair level). That way, people get to see the programming they really want - that way, us non-soap fans would be happy in the knowledge that none of our money is going into making "bad programming" (what constitutes bad programming is of course very subjective).
lurker452
17-03-2006, 17:16
That's simply choice. And there will always be things you don't want to watch.
I'm sorry but Sky's own programming doesn't compare.
I think all that is worth £126.
Sky for me is(was) just £400 a year worth of channel swapping, oh and CCTV footage.
I've just done some very vague maths, I think I use 20hrs a week of BBC services on average. That's about 12p an hour. So it cost me 12p to watch Apprentice the other night.
I'm okay with that.
I agree there will always be things you don't want to watch. I'm just saying I'd like something to watch! In an average week I would perhaps watch less than one hour of the BBC of which most of it is Match of the day and I don't watch it in its entirety. That makes the BBC cost over £2.40 an hour!
Whereas Sky costs £15 a month... Now saying I watch 60 hours per month (although it's much much more) works out at 25p per hour. That makes the BBC nearly 10 times as expensive per hour!
I never said Sky's own programming compares in fact I said Sky makes crap. Having said that they partly funded the new Battlestar Galactica 2004 which is currently the best science-fiction series currently running. Generally Sky 's strength is through its American imports not through their own programming which is generally made as filler... And it's not like the BBC doesn't make equally bad programming!
If it is funded by the people, I don't understand why the funds can't come general taxation rather than a licence, which presumably costs to enforce and collect, and puts people in prison for not paying. they could still use the same formula for working out the 'fee' per person. I'd also like to see some of the cash not going directly to the BBC, which I think is probably massively over-staffed. No problem with paying for a public broadcaster, but I still want them to be competitive in terms of production. I fail to understand for instance why they poach 'talent' from commercial channels instead of building it within. Hopefully, BBC4 and similar should be a good breeding ground. What I want from the BBC is something I wouldn't normally expect to see from a commercial broadcaster - long term projects like Planet Earth, investigative journalism of the type most newspapers seem to have forgotten to do (and the BBC neglects too), bringing up new talent on and off screen and buying in quality programmes (like C5 does!).
I'm horribly opposed to the BBC in principle - TV is not like education or healthcare, we're not in anyway entitled to it and it shouldn't be fosted upon those who don't want it.
However.
I look at the BBC news service (and accomponing website) - one of the least biased and best news services in the world (and before someone starts, I know it's not perfect - it's just the best we have).
I look at the brilliant original programming on BBC 3 and 4, especially thier documentaries.
And I listen to the brilliant programming on Radio 4.
And I know that if the unwashed masses that make Coronation Street the most-watched program in the country had thier way, they wouldn't want any of this stuff, and were the Beeb to switch to an advertising funded or subscription model, they'd have to cater for them, and we'd lose everything that makes the BBC great.
So yes, it's unfair, but god knows we need it if we're to save ourselves from all our news and entertainment media being in the pocket of the big companies.
thescrounger
18-03-2006, 01:19
The licence fee is worth it I'm afraid.
The licence fee is worth it I'm afraid.
fine, then you pay for it.
I don't force you to pay a Sky subscription, so why should I sponsor the BBC ? If it really is so absolutely super, then let it go subscription and make lots of money.
fine, then you pay for it.
I don't force you to pay a Sky subscription, so why should I sponsor the BBC ? If it really is so absolutely super, then let it go subscription and make lots of money.
None of us forced you to pay for the BBC either.
It does not exist to make shed loads of cash, that is not its remit; which is why the technical quality is so good, because the money is not farmed for profit.
Nobody is forcing you to accept the BBC, if you want purely commercial TV then clear off to a country that suits your entertainment agenda.
There's your choice.
If it is funded by the people, I don't understand why the funds can't come general taxation rather than a licence, which presumably costs to enforce and collect, and puts people in prison for not paying. they could still use the same formula for working out the 'fee' per person. I'd also like to see some of the cash not going directly to the BBC, which I think is probably massively over-staffed.
To attain the quality that you refer to in your later paragraph, then perhaps it needs to be over-staffed? And in that case, it's not actually over staffed.
NicolaUK
18-03-2006, 13:00
The TV licence is nothing more than another tax in my opinion. I feel that once the analogue system is switched off it will be simple to block the BBC channels for those who don't wish to subscribe.
mitch316
18-03-2006, 13:22
None of us forced you to pay for the BBC either.
It does not exist to make shed loads of cash, that is not its remit; which is why the technical quality is so good, because the money is not farmed for profit.
Nobody is forcing you to accept the BBC, if you want purely commercial TV then clear off to a country that suits your entertainment agenda.
There's your choice.
but there is no choice. if you want to own a tv you must pay the licence fee whether you watch the beeb or not. so in fact we are forced to pay it
Nobody is forcing you to accept the BBC, if you want purely commercial TV then clear off to a country that suits your entertainment agenda.
What an absoloutely ridiculous comment. :oh-hum:
andybhoy
18-03-2006, 15:48
Nobody is forcing you to accept the BBC, if you want purely commercial TV then clear off to a country that suits your entertainment agenda.
:lol: :lol:
Oh sorry, you were serious. :|
To attain the quality that you refer to in your later paragraph, then perhaps it needs to be over-staffed? And in that case, it's not actually over staffed.
Fair point, but from what I've heard, it appears to be massivly overstaffed with people who don't contribute to quality programming, just increase the headcount at meetings and overseas broadcasts. I'd accept that producing good radio shows as on R4 costs more and takes more people than accepting payola from Sony, err edit, than playing chart music all day, but as they are using public money, they need to be concious of running efficiently. Having said that, I wouldn't want to see BBC news look like the Quiz Call channel ;)
None of us forced you to pay for the BBC either.
It does not exist to make shed loads of cash, that is not its remit; which is why the technical quality is so good, because the money is not farmed for profit.
Nobody is forcing you to accept the BBC, if you want purely commercial TV then clear off to a country that suits your entertainment agenda.
There's your choice.
with respect ROne, as others have pointed out - we are ALL forced to pay this if we want to own a working TV, even though I mostly watch satellite television and DVD's on it, I still have to pay the Telly Tax (now thats a name which could stick ! ).
I would prefer the BBC to be a commercial proposition or at least have that as a medium to long term aim in a world of growing competition and alternatives.
DeadYankee
19-03-2006, 11:23
Yeah, because commercial TV has always been great in this country. Why don't we make the schools and libraries commercial ventures too? Lets get the country sponsored by Big Brother while we are at it
Yeah, because commercial TV has always been great in this country. Why don't we make the schools and libraries commercial ventures too? Lets get the country sponsored by Big Brother while we are at it
Schools are becoming commercial ventures via City Acadamies. Library sponsorship hmmm good idea really, you could print coke logos on all the pages.
Comparing free tv to license fee funded TV Tonight!...
BBC - Planet Earth , Panorama, Planet Earth and some sports.. not bad I spose! If Sky Sports was in charge i'd have to pay premium channle prices to see that sport!
BBC2 - Some dull repeats but also a couple of top american imports and some excellent public service broadcasting later with signed popular programmes and educational fodder ... Which other channel would pay for signed repeats in early hours?
ITV - Soaps and a murder mystery and F1 highlights... ok i spos but a bit "light"
C4 - some nice bits and bobs with music concerts mixed in with some Reality rubbish... the general malaise of C4... if it carried on as it first appeared it woulda given BBC a run for its money.
C5 - Good films and rubbish films and some good niche sports coverage in early hours...
And this discounts all the radio and BBC3, BBC4 and BBC News 24
If we went totally to commercial TV... then tell me this?
Which other channel would fund Planet Earth to give it the same quality... and don't give me that Documentary channel cheap shot rubbish!
Which other channel would fund panorama? Sometimes a little light but sometimes hardhitting programming...
Who else would fund signed versions of popular programmes in early hours?
Who else would fund Radio 4? or Radio 3 or BBC 4 or even Radio 2!!!
Who else would produce Match of the Day without charging Premium Sports Channel Prices to Receive it.. (anyone who mentions ITV's "alternative" a year or so ago needs shooting in the head!)
Who else gives (gave) you boxing for free instead of charging you PPV prices!
Who gave you F1 coverage with no bloody ads interrupting the flow of the race.
BBC 1
18:15 Last of the Summer Wine >>
18:45 Antiques Roadshow Retrospective Special >>
19:35 BBC News >>
19:45 BBC London News >>
20:00 Mayo >>
21:00 Planet Earth >>
22:00 BBC News >>
22:15 Panorama >>
23:00 Commonwealth Games 2006 >>
02:00 Commonwealth Games 2006 >>
BBC 2
18:10 Portillo Goes Wild in Spain >>
19:00 Top of the Pops >>
19:30 The Games Today With Steve Ovett >>
21:00 Best of Top Gear >>
22:00 Petrolheads >>
22:30 Match of the Day 2 >>
23:20 American Dad Stan Knows Best >>
23:45 Family Guy European Road Show >>
00:05 Weather View >>
00:10 Natural World Stalking the Jaguar >>
01:00 Holby City >>
02:00 Workskills: Get Reading, Get Writing >>
03:00 Workskills: Get Reading, Get Writing Reading Skills >>
04:00 Workskills: Get Reading, Get Writing >>
05:00 Workskills: Get Reading, Get Writing Getting Published >>
ITV 1
18:30 London Tonight; Weather >>
18:45 ITV News and Weather >>
19:00 Emmerdale >>
19:30 Coronation Street >>
20:00 The Royal >>
21:00 Agatha Christie's Poirot >>
23:00 ITV News and Weather >>
23:15 F1: Malaysian Grand Prix Highlights >>
00:20 Faith and Music >>
01:05 Quizmania >>
03:15 Fat Chance >>
03:40 Redcoats >>
04:10 Boot Sale Treasure Hunt >>
05:00 ITV Nightscreen >>
Channel 4
18:00 Time Team Sussex Ups and Downs >>
18:55 Desperate Housewives That's Good, That's Bad >>
19:45 Channel 4 News >>
20:00 Invasion Power >>
21:00 The Games: Live >>
22:00 The Hole Film (2001) >>
23:55 Mary J Blige Featuring U2: Video Exclusive >>
00:00 The Album Chart Show >>
00:35 Julian Clary's Favourite Showbiz Hissy Fits
01:35 KOTV
02:00 Le Championnat
03:50 The Jamie Kennedy Experiment >>
04:15 Wild Things
05:00 Scrapheap Challenge >>
Five
18:00 five news and sport >>
18:10 Daddy Day Care Film (2003) >>
20:00 Everybody Hates Chris >>
20:30 Everybody Hates Chris >>
21:00 Anger Management Film (2003) >>
23:05 Peter Kay: Live at the Top of the Tower >>
00:20 Winter X Games 2006 >>
01:15 Ironman Triathlon >>
02:00 NCAA College Basketball >>
03:20 Motor Racing >>
04:10 Motorsport Mundial >>
04:30 Dutch Football >>
And the anti-BBC peeps.... call me sad but here are some interesting points...
Tonytol - How much would you pay for Planet Earth, Hotel Babylon, BBC Parliament, Murderball and Spooks? Also you are happy with Freeview .. wonder how that is funded?
Andybhoy - you may yawn but you'll have to pay for... Planet Earth and Dr Who... If anyone will pay to produce em for commercial tv
NicolaUK - once analogue is switched off how much for... Eurovision, Life on Mars, The Office
mitch316 - go on give us a few quid for Little Britain...
Banus - how much you willing to fork over for Planet Earth, The Apprentice, Newsnight Review, Life on Mars, Stephen Poliakoff season, the Office
Now this was just a quick search of programme threads you posted in! So god knows how many others from the BBC that you watch.
I'd be interested to hear which of the above you think would be funded by commercial TV and be of the same quality if the BBC did not exist or was subcription only?
andybhoy
20-03-2006, 08:18
Andybhoy - you may yawn but you'll have to pay for... Planet Earth and Dr Who... If anyone will pay to produce em for commercial tv
I yawn at people who call any complaints !whinging".
Planet earth and dr who - adds up to a license fee of around a fiver, so someone owes me a fortune.
It's shameful that in this day and age, we can criminalise folk for owning a tv.
One day there will be no licence. That's at least something to look forward to.
andybhoy
20-03-2006, 08:20
I'd be interested to hear which of the above you think would be funded by commercial TV and be of the same quality if the BBC did not exist or was subcription only?
I presume the question is would the bbc maintain it's quality? I imagine it would - given that that quality is pretty poor. I would survive just fine without it, as would all the "poor people" we're told it's there for.
Most of the shows you listed are crap anyway.
Fawtly, you put me down as an anti-BBC person but please see post #18 I think the BBC is fab, and lots of people do forget it's 2 main channels, a number of other digital channels, a news service, national and local radio, the net, plus significant broadcast presence throughout the world.
However, that doesn't mean they get a free ride with the licence fee or how they spend it. I'm hoping that the new and more independent Trust rather than board of governors will improve some areas the BBC doesn't excel in. They're a million miles removed from the stuffy organisation they used to be, but there's still some way to go.
oh, and btw - I saw Murderball at the cinema, it isn't a BBC production. Spooks (independently produced by Kudos) and Hotel Babylon (independently produced by Carnival Films) are trashy fun of the kind that ITV can commission, and not as good as many C5 imports. Freeview is only part owned by the BBC, along with ITV, Channel 4 , BSkyB and National Grid Wireless. Planet Earth is joint prodction with Discovery Channel, NHK and CBC, but I'm guessing the Beeb put most of the cash and expertise up for it, so I'll give you that one :D
that is a good point tony.. apologies there. Dunno why I read you as being anti-BBC
and I agree that it should be part of taxation then it'd be hidden along with all the other so called "stealth taxes"
£126.50 a year per person would'nt even add a penny to income tax...
But then if it was through taxation the dole scrounging scum would get it for free :)
Andybhoy - I only listed the programmes you posted about... if you are saying those are the only 2 BBC programmes you watch/listen to at all then I would say you are not getting VFM. I am so used to Anti-BBC people saying I NEVER watch BBC so I thought I'd see if it was true and hey-hey surprise they do watch it. If the BBC was commercial then just look to existing commercial TV to see what would happen. Alot of the public service stuff would vanish (like signed popular programmes) no British Sci-fi, who else funds decent British Sci-fi? In fact what decent programming does Sky directly fund/produce at all! ... No Planet Earth... you may get a cheaper produced and cheaper shot piece on the Discovery channel... maybe.
Actually I don't know why we bother with this debate every few months...
those you hate BBC and license fee won't budge
and neither will pro-license fee brigade...
it is a case of Never the Twain Shall Meet
But nevertheless lets wheel out and flog the equine once more.
Good post Fawlty, I would miss programmes like Planet Earth, but you are supposing that if the BBC was not a tax on us, that we wouldn't pay something to watch it, just not a compulsory tax.
Also if the Beeb weren't making such programmes, who is to say that another production company wouldn't ? Personally I think we should give the licence fee to HBO for a year and see what they come up with ? Afterall, did they BBC come up with Band of Brothers, From the Earth to the Moon, Sopranos, Curb your entusiasm etc etc...
In this day and age, the BBC should be a commercial propositon, advertising, subscription whatever. I would be happy for central taxes to fund programmes of special interest ie sign language for the deaf, schools programming etc (but not Eurovision !).
DeadYankee
20-03-2006, 11:06
Also if the Beeb weren't making such programmes, who is to say that another production company wouldn't ? Personally I think we should give the licence fee to HBO for a year and see what they come up with ? Afterall, did they BBC come up with Band of Brothers, From the Earth to the Moon, Sopranos, Curb your entusiasm etc etc...
Another company wouldn't make them as they'd be driven entirely by ratings driven profit and that doesn't equate to quality programming. And as for your second point, well, personally I wouldn't be so eager to totally sell out British culture to the USA. We get the absoulute best of US programming here and a lot of that is total crap. We are not America and we should have pride that we, at least, still have some semblance of standards in our national broadcasting
Another company wouldn't make them as they'd be driven entirely by ratings driven profit and that doesn't equate to quality programming. And as for your second point, well, personally I wouldn't be so eager to totally sell out British culture to the USA. We get the absoulute best of US programming here and a lot of that is total crap. We are not America and we should have pride that we, at least, still have some semblance of standards in our national broadcasting
I think HBO and the examples above are proof that quality does exist in a commercial atmosphere too.
As for quality / ratings.....I understand that Planet Earth is drawing huge ratings, so why wouldn't a commercial venture make such a programme ?
You are correct of course that much of american television is crap, but then so is much of ours. Its just that we pay a telly tax to recieve the crap that we recieve and are supposed to be thankfull for the privilege of paying it !?
DeadYankee
20-03-2006, 11:18
As for quality / ratings.....I understand that Planet Earth is drawing huge ratings, so why wouldn't a commercial venture make such a programme ?
!?
It seems obvious to me that the commercial companies wouldn't make such a programme because they'd have no starting point. The BBC has a long culture of making such programmes and has the expertise to do it. Where would the people to make these programmes materialise from if the BBC weren't in the unique position of being able to foster and develop them without being subject to the whims of the market.
NicolaUK
20-03-2006, 11:32
And the anti-BBC peeps.... call me sad but here are some interesting points...
NicolaUK - once analogue is switched off how much for... Eurovision, Life on Mars, The Office
Now this was just a quick search of programme threads you posted in! So god knows how many others from the BBC that you watch.
I'd be interested to hear which of the above you think would be funded by commercial TV and be of the same quality if the BBC did not exist or was subcription only?
I don't see where in my post I said that I wouldn't subscribe to the BBC channels if given a choice or where I said I was anti-BBC :shrug: I would like to see a situation where those that don't want to watch the BBC would still be able to own a television set and watch commercial TV. It should be a freedom of choice.
In the programmes threads that I've posted on, Eurovision would be exactly the same on commercial TV and The Office is made in the US by NBC with adverts and is, IMHO, better that the UK version. Life on Mars is great but is it better than 24, Lost or Battlestar Galactica? For me, no.
Bonzo Banana
20-03-2006, 11:35
Put me in the anti-tv license camp. I absolutely hate the BBC and all it stands for. It is theft plain and simple because there is no justification to force people to pay for entertainment. Taxes should be about emergency services, defence etc.
I'll admit there are some programs the BBC can do well. I enjoyed the CGI dinosaur series a lot but I've bought them on DVD. In recent months I've watched nothing to speak of on the BBC. Over the weekend the only thing I really watched was 'The Water Margin' and I used to watch 'Lost' when it was on. I work a permanent nightshift and tend to prefer browsing the internet, watching dvd movies on my projector and playing videogames to general TV viewing. Frankly I wouldn't miss the BBC at all if it didn't exist.
I remember working at the BBC laying cables many years ago. It was a BBC training college. It was not that inspiring to be honest. Most of the people were pretty laid back and I doubt if you could get a hard day's graft out of any of them. The only way the BBC survives is because they have the right to steal from everyone. No way would such an inefficient corporation survive in the real world in competition with real tv/media companies. Which ever camp you are in be in pro-license or anti-license most people are agreed the BBC would never survive in the real world for long. That to me is justification in itself to scrap it. Poorly managed and inefficient and nothing more than legalised theft.
Bonzo Banana - seems to me you dont need a tv license if you hardly watch any telly at all. Because despite the naysayers in here you don't have to have a tv license to own a tv. You only need one if you watch any broadcast tv...
So if you use tv to watch dvd's and play videogames etc then you don't need one.
So there you are.. its not theft and you can save yourself £126.50 a year.
As for BBC being the same if commercial... Where is the evidence? Where are all the quality British produced programming on commercial TV? If that were the case... commercial ad-driven tv would have programmes such as planet earth and other quality documentaries. Other commercial channels would provide signed programming (Does Sky do this?)... Other commercial channels would commission new Sci-fi shows... New quality drama shows... When was the last time a British produced commercial TV drama was upto the Beeb's quality?
In fact I can't remember the last time I watched anything but US imports on commercial TV?
As for the American imports... yes I do like them... but it would a bloody sad day if all our programming was US imports.. because lets face it without the Beeb british productions would consist of reality shows and soaps and Celebrity rubbish fat pets... I am aware the BBC produces some shows like these but nothing like the volume of dross on ITV, C5, C4, Sky One etc etc etc.
And the reason why the Beeb won't work commercially and why there won't be the ratings is because average Joe wants to watch celebrity wife swap enema with big brother and corrie and emerdale.. thats where the big ratings are. Easy cheap programming for the masses...
Now I'm depressed!
MaxNutter
20-03-2006, 12:19
I think HBO and the examples above are proof that quality does exist in a commercial atmosphere too.
HBO is commercial and a subscription channel though isn't ...
As for quality / ratings.....I understand that Planet Earth is drawing huge ratings, so why wouldn't a commercial venture make such a programme ?
You are correct of course that much of american television is crap, but then so is much of ours. Its just that we pay a telly tax to recieve the crap that we recieve and are supposed to be thankfull for the privilege of paying it !?
one man's crap is another man's gem ... plus, compare BBC radio with commercial rubbish ... shudder, Shelia's Wheels :gag:
HBO is commercial and a subscription channel though isn't ...
that was my very point......a commercial outfit like HBO can produce wonderful quality programmes.
Bonzo Banana - seems to me you dont need a tv license if you hardly watch any telly at all. Because despite the naysayers in here you don't have to have a tv license to own a tv. You only need one if you watch any broadcast tv...
So if you use tv to watch dvd's and play videogames etc then you don't need one.
what you are decribing is acalled a monitor - however, if you have a machine that is capable of recieving broadcasts even if you only want to watch ITV or sky, then you have to pay the telly tax.
As for quality ITV broadcasts, how about Poirot, Sharpe or Morse ? lets get rid of this myth that only the Beeb can do quality, especially with the funding the recieve it should be expected.
MaxNutter
20-03-2006, 14:11
that was my very point......a commercial outfit like HBO can produce wonderful quality programmes.
not commercial like ITV or Sky1 though, it's also subscription so it has even more cash to splash ... plus the "we don't give a ****" stance towards (some) censorship ...
DeadYankee
20-03-2006, 14:13
Plus they work with the BBC!
what you are decribing is acalled a monitor - however, if you have a machine that is capable of recieving broadcasts even if you only want to watch ITV or sky, then you have to pay the telly tax.
Banus you can call it a bloody banana if you want to ... a TV a monitor I don't care...
The rules are VERY simple
If you own television and only use it for "monitor purposes" i.e. dvd , videogames etc etc then you don't have to pay regardless of what circuitry is inside the monitor.
If you watch any broadcast tv on your monitor then you pay tv license.
I specifically mentioned this for Bonzo banana purely because it seems he watches very little or no TV... So if he knocks any remaining scraps of TV viewing on the head he can save £126.50 a year.
The reason I offered this advice is because at least 1-2 posts said that if you own a TV then you pay TV license which isn't true.
As for quality on commercial TV compared to BBC I think the problem is that we all have a different idea of "quality"
I haven't watched ITV for years apart from the odd half hour of TV burp...
Lets face it Morse has been off screen for 5 years now... Sharpe has been off for 8 and there is no indication of whether the new one is going to be any good. I lump Poirot in with Heartbeat as innofensive granny entertainment... Agatha Christie was a decided hack anyway with very little "quality" in her output...
I know If I went through a years schedules and excluded US imports and just dealt with British original productions I'd find more quality on the Beeb than any other channels.
I exclude US imports because I maintain that as much as we all love them our tv will be a sad place if all our shows are American!
And I haven't even mentioned the radio , or the website with streaming content yet!
I fail to see how that volume of quality can be dismissed
Sky costs me double my license fee and yet it only provides me with US imports and no original British productions of worth... and they don't do any community broadcasting or provide any radio stations of note or provide signed programmes for the deaf.
How can teh BBC not be VFM?
What an absoloutely ridiculous comment. :oh-hum:
Ahh well it was meant to be a bit of a rise; but it raises a serious point for me, that ultimately if you are put into a corner over something, then why not do something about it? I mean Banus has lots of problems with elements of this country (I think he's NI?) - then why is he still here?
We hear; don't like your job - change it, don't like your car, change it. Don't like your country - then find find one that you do like.
but there is no choice. if you want to own a tv you must pay the licence fee whether you watch the beeb or not. so in fact we are forced to pay it
I was being pedantic. Banus was suggesting that he wouldn't force us to subscribe to SKY and I returned it wasn't us who had forced him to pay for BBC. Sorry.
with respect ROne, as others have pointed out - we are ALL forced to pay this if we want to own a working TV, even though I mostly watch satellite television and DVD's on it, I still have to pay the Telly Tax (now thats a name which could stick ! ).
I would prefer the BBC to be a commercial proposition or at least have that as a medium to long term aim in a world of growing competition and alternatives.
Yeah I know, but this brings me to a broader tax situation, that is should any of us subsidise anything? And if not - what then ...
I see the BBC as a good thing, good for kids, good for education - in other words good for society. I don't see it purely as an entertainment mechanism, to that end I believe we would be a worse society without it. I can't qualify that but that's what I speculate. To that end, I figure we probably get a better return on our 'investment' that purely money.
I presume the question is would the bbc maintain it's quality? I imagine it would - given that that quality is pretty poor. I would survive just fine without it, as would all the "poor people" we're told it's there for.
Quality is two fold, the quality of the service, production and technical elemets and quality of the programming.
Compare the digital streams between sky and freeview, there is no subjective excuse in the world that can set free sky from its miserable low bit rate block fest.
andybhoy
20-03-2006, 18:20
Andybhoy - I only listed the programmes you posted about... if you are saying those are the only 2 BBC programmes you watch/listen to at all then I would say you are not getting VFM. I am so used to Anti-BBC people saying I NEVER watch BBC so I thought I'd see if it was true and hey-hey surprise they do watch it. If the BBC was commercial then just look to existing commercial TV to see what would happen. Alot of the public service stuff would vanish (like signed popular programmes) no British Sci-fi, who else funds decent British Sci-fi? In fact what decent programming does Sky directly fund/produce at all! ... No Planet Earth... you may get a cheaper produced and cheaper shot piece on the Discovery channel... maybe.
They're the only two programs I watch (and I have only seen one of Planet Earth). That works out at 15 episodes of tv in the last 12 months.
I used to watch Match of the Day, but now I watch Sky for that, since you get a far better highlights service.
I have a massive number of dvds and shows I can watch, so it's unlikely to change.
The last great sci fi funded with British money was S1 of BSG. A commercial venture, with a quality far higher than anything the bbc has ever produced (in sci fi). While I loved the new Dr Who, it's not exactly sci fi.
There is one other bbc service I use - the bbcnews website, as it's the only site we're allowed to use at work. But over the last year the bbc's web presence has been slimlined because it was offering things that commercial websites offered. The irony that the one part of the service I used was being cut back because it was deemed to offer too much, is not lost on me.
As a sidenote, I know a lot of people get fed up with hearing from naysayers but I must say, as long as I am subsidising someone else's viewing habits, I will feel free to express my thoughts on it. I also won't emigrate, just because some think we should :suspect: While there are genuine public services I don't use, I don't mind paying for those as they're for the greater good. The bbc is not for the greater good and offers very little that can't be found elsewhere. It's certainly no real benefit to society.
andybhoy
20-03-2006, 18:23
Lets face it Morse has been off screen for 5 years now... Sharpe has been off for 8 and there is no indication of whether the new one is going to be any good.
It damn well better be as it's the only thing I've looked forward to on ITV for years!
Spoiler for Sharpe in regards to whether or not it's based on a book
Although set after waterloo, it appears to be quite tightly based on Sharpe's Tiger. If they mess this one up, I'll be gutted!
andybhoy
20-03-2006, 18:33
Ahh well it was meant to be a bit of a rise; but it raises a serious point for me, that ultimately if you are put into a corner over something, then why not do something about it? I mean Banus has lots of problems with elements of this country (I think he's NI?) - then why is he still here?
We hear; don't like your job - change it, don't like your car, change it. Don't like your country - then find find one that you do like.
I'm sure that when there's something about this country you don't like, you'll exercise your right to complain about it. Or should you have to leave it? :suspect:
It is patently ridiculous to demand that people who complain about the tv tax should have to leave the country or shut up.
It is patently ridiculous to demand that people who complain about the tv tax should have to leave the country or shut up.
Indeed, but it is also immensly dull for the rest of us to hear people drone on and on about the same points that have been made a million times. The BBC is a tax, get over it. There are plenty of taxes that I don't like and would prefer not to but you don't see me whining about all of them. And the license fee is not the only tax you have to pay for creative outlets, we all subsidise libriary's, musiums, exhibitions etc. I'm not trying to put down the people who don't like having to pay a tax, but thats what it is and we all have to pay it and like all taxes we may not all agree on what the money is spent on.
Personally I buy all the books that I read, therefore should we turn all the libriarys into professional book rental shops. Why should I appear for something I don't use? Replace books with the word Dvd's and you get to the similar argument to the ones people are making about the BBC....
I'm sure that when there's something about this country you don't like, you'll exercise your right to complain about it. Or should you have to leave it? :suspect:
It is patently ridiculous to demand that people who complain about the tv tax should have to leave the country or shut up.
I'm not demanding anything.
But I will humour this all the same; i'm just reflecting the anger that some people show towards the license. IF it's that much of problem then do something about it - that could included moving somewhere else.
And nobody is telling people to shut up or leave the country, that is patently ridiculous and sir, are your words.
has anyone any idea what the bbc are playing at broadcasting over the web? i smell them trying to extract a licence fee out of anyone that owns anything that can access the web in the very near future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/multicast/
has anyone any idea what the bbc are playing at broadcasting over the web? i smell them trying to extract a licence fee out of anyone that owns anything that can access the web in the very near future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/multicast/
I'm not an expert but I believe this is a fundamental trial system that they had in place for provision of hi-def on the web.
They also are building up an on-demand archive of programmes.
But I don't know any more as I couldn't do the mulit-cast trials.
andybhoy
20-03-2006, 19:01
I'm not demanding anything.
But I will humour this all the same; i'm just reflecting the anger that some people show towards the license. IF it's that much of problem then do something about it - that could included moving somewhere else.
And nobody is telling people to shut up or leave the country, that is patently ridiculous and sir, are your words.
Sorry, I have no intention of emigrating just because I'm having £126 half inched from me every year. The thing I'll do about it, is to complain about it. If you don't like it, oh maybe you should move to a country that doesn't allow people to complain about a tv licence ;)
I think the only problem with the TV license is that it is completely open to scrutiny... we know exactly how much tax pays for it and its fairly open in structure.
If it is was hidden amongst other taxes it'd get as many complaints as funding for Opera, Ballet, Museums, Art Galleries, Libraries, Youth Centres, outreach centres for minorities.
2 further points.. I said BRITISH Sci-fi... not "we send US producers money to make more shows for us because we can't be bothered to make decent British shows"! Oh and I wouldn't try and get into an argument about what is Sci-fi... cos as far as I can see Battlestar Galactica is a superb drama show... but technically its not Sci-fi either... very little is to be honest.
andybhoy
20-03-2006, 19:05
Indeed, but it is also immensly dull for the rest of us to hear people drone on and on about the same points that have been made a million times. The BBC is a tax, get over it.
No, I'll complain whenever I want. If you'd like to "ignore" me, then that would be just fine. I won't however stop exercising my right to dissent to this.
The fact of the matter is that your side drone on and on, with the same points, just as mine does. I'm perfectly happy for you to do that.
One practical suggestion to those who don't want to watch or pay for the BBC but like some quality commercial programming. (works for me)
Projector (no tuner) + HTPC (no tuner) and/or DVD player, then just buy/rent your entertainment. 24 box sets, HBO stuff etc, movies whatever.
You could always use your computer to get some on-demand stuff which is pretty limited now, but is improving.
I suppose you can then get access to BBC website for free, if you wanted news and stuff.
And isn't sky making a broadband cast available? (Sports and NEWS?)
All done without a license.
andybhoy
20-03-2006, 19:06
has anyone any idea what the bbc are playing at broadcasting over the web? i smell them trying to extract a licence fee out of anyone that owns anything that can access the web in the very near future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/multicast/
All part of the plan to get licence fees for owning a computer. Perhaps one day their wish to tax each item individually will work out for them, and they can charge for each tv set, each computer, etc.
Sorry, I have no intention of emigrating just because I'm having £126 half inched from me every year. The thing I'll do about it, is to complain about it. If you don't like it, oh maybe you should move to a country that doesn't allow people to complain about a tv licence ;)
It's not my position to object to you complaining. It was just a suggestion to those that couldn't possibly live to see another day knowing they were funding the BBC.
See above for example how you could do it license-less.
All part of the plan to get licence fees for owning a computer. Perhaps one day their wish to tax each item individually will work out for them, and they can charge for each tv set, each computer, etc.
Look if you want to get political I fear that there are worse ways of spending my tax, that don't immediately appear to benefit me in the same way the BBC does.
Wars, Corporation subsidy, wage subsidy ... Another thread though.
All part of the plan to get licence fees for owning a computer. Perhaps one day their wish to tax each item individually will work out for them, and they can charge for each tv set, each computer, etc.
my thoughts exactly, pc cards in pc's is fair enough. but broadcasting over the web suddenly turns every pc into a receiver. their licensing model currently cant cope with the idea of a laptop on a public wi-fi network watching live tv can it? what if it's a work owned pc on a business trip or you have no tv or web at home but in mcdonalds or the airport lounge you've suddenly got a receiver?
Banus you can call it a bloody banana if you want to ... a TV a monitor I don't care...
The rules are VERY simple
If you own television and only use it for "monitor purposes" i.e. dvd , videogames etc etc then you don't have to pay regardless of what circuitry is inside the monitor.
If you watch any broadcast tv on your monitor then you pay tv license.
I specifically mentioned this for Bonzo banana purely because it seems he watches very little or no TV... So if he knocks any remaining scraps of TV viewing on the head he can save £126.50 a year.
The reason I offered this advice is because at least 1-2 posts said that if you own a TV then you pay TV license which isn't true.
not sure you are correct, you can own a 'monitor' as I pointed out - however the rules are that if you own a TV set or other device capable of recieving broadcasts - then you must have a licence.
Therefore, as a TV which does not recieve broadcasts is hardly worthy of being called a TV.......this tax is indeed a tax on having a television and therefore compulsory even if you want to use your TV to watch paid for Sky transmissions.
Oh and it is going up to over £131 from April 2006, this will make Planet Earth the most expensive programme most of us have ever seen.
DeadYankee
20-03-2006, 21:19
not sure you are correct, you can own a 'monitor' as I pointed out - however the rules are that if you own a TV set or other device capable of recieving broadcasts - then you must have a licence..
No, his is correct and you are incorrect. It is perfectly legal to inform the TV licencing people that you have a tv set that is only used for use with, for example, a PS2.
To be totally sure of your position you can tape up the aerial connector on the tv set to prevent the signal being received
not sure you are correct, you can own a 'monitor' as I pointed out - however the rules are that if you own a TV set or other device capable of recieving broadcasts - then you must have a licence.
Therefore, as a TV which does not recieve broadcasts is hardly worthy of being called a TV.......this tax is indeed a tax on having a television and therefore compulsory even if you want to use your TV to watch paid for Sky transmissions.
as DeadYankee says you couldn't be wronger...
Ring up the licensing people if you don't believe us... check other forums where people have done exactly that. Go to their website
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp
and it says explicitly
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one.
If you do not use your TV to receive broadcasts you don't have to pay...
They recommend disconnecting all aerials and dishes so it is obvious you are not cheating etc.
Hence noone is forced to pay. I have been considering this as an option myself as I watch alot of TV boxsets but not much telly... But oddly enough its the BBC stuff I'd miss most (as I can get all the US imports in DVD boxsets anyway and thats all I use from subscription based commercial tv for)
So maybe Freesat for me.
As far as I can see Sky is the redundant service because all their shows come out on DVD very quickly after broadcast.
HBO is commercial and a subscription channel though isn't ...
That's an unfair comparison - the BBC and HBO have to fill the same hours of programming as each other. If the BBC switched to a subscription model like HBO it would have access to only a fraction of the potential audience HBO has access too.
HBO (and large scale pay-per-view events) work in the US as you only need a very small percentage 'buy-in' of the total population to make it work. The UK has a significantly smaller population that just wouldn't support it.
As mentioned above if you can stretch to a projector they are tunerless, there is no way you can access a TV picture without a tuner, but you can still access web and DVD sources.
neilalford
21-03-2006, 09:33
that was my very point......a commercial outfit like HBO can produce wonderful quality programmes.
Don't know exactly how much HBO costs but I believe it's not cheap, I expect an HBO subscription is not much less each year than the TV licence and that's for (I believe) just one channel, and taking into account the economies of scale advantage they get from being a US channel it makes the BBC seem fairly good value!
To be honest, the £11 a month I pay for the "TV Tax" gives me what I think is a reasonable return on my money certainly in comparison to the many, many hundreds of pounds of other tax that I pay each month for very little obvious benefit.
MaxNutter
21-03-2006, 13:23
That's an unfair comparison - the BBC and HBO have to fill the same hours of programming as each other. If the BBC switched to a subscription model like HBO it would have access to only a fraction of the potential audience HBO has access too.
HBO (and large scale pay-per-view events) work in the US as you only need a very small percentage 'buy-in' of the total population to make it work. The UK has a significantly smaller population that just wouldn't support it.
which was my point ... and i doubt that HBO broadcasts anywhere near the same number of weekly hours of say BBC1 ...
as DeadYankee says you couldn't be wronger...
Ring up the licensing people if you don't believe us... check other forums where people have done exactly that. Go to their website
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp
and it says explicitly
If you do not use your TV to receive broadcasts you don't have to pay...
They recommend disconnecting all aerials and dishes so it is obvious you are not cheating etc.
Hence noone is forced to pay. I have been considering this as an option myself as I watch alot of TV boxsets but not much telly... But oddly enough its the BBC stuff I'd miss most (as I can get all the US imports in DVD boxsets anyway and thats all I use from subscription based commercial tv for)
So maybe Freesat for me.
As far as I can see Sky is the redundant service because all their shows come out on DVD very quickly after broadcast.
but if I want to watch ITV or Sky then I still have to pay, I am forced to pay for BBC programmes even if I don't watch them.
And of course you may pay just as much for HBO, but then that would be a choice whereas you have no choice with the BBC, if you want to have a TV rather than a monitor, you have to pay the telly tax. As a libertarian I have a problem with that.
neilalford
22-03-2006, 08:56
but if I want to watch ITV or Sky then I still have to pay, I am forced to pay for BBC programmes even if I don't watch them.
And of course you may pay just as much for HBO, but then that would be a choice whereas you have no choice with the BBC, if you want to have a TV rather than a monitor, you have to pay the telly tax. As a libertarian I have a problem with that.
I can see your point. Guess it doesn't really bother me as I'd be quite happy to pay for it was a voluntary subscription service as I think it's pretty good value for money. One of the few "taxes" that I actually feel that way about!
MaxNutter
22-03-2006, 09:22
And of course you may pay just as much for HBO, but then that would be a choice whereas you have no choice with the BBC, if you want to have a TV rather than a monitor, you have to pay the telly tax. As a libertarian I have a problem with that.
nothing to do with the Beeb being a lefty-haven then? ;)
nothing to do with the Beeb being a lefty-haven then? ;)
not the whole reason but part of it indeed. Would you want to be forced to subscribe to Fox News ? I want to watch the BBC but not to be forced to do so.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.