TV Licence Should anyone be paying it????

vyle

Part of me hates the TV license, because it forces you to pay one corporation even to watch channels that have nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, I do notice a lot of programs I watch have actually been created by the bbc. I have BBC news on my RSS feed, I love Newswipe, Screenwipe, Top Gear, Blackadder, Dad's army, QI, Have I got news for you, Mock the week and a raft of documentaries.

Even if I'm watching these programs on Dave or repeated on any number of channels, they originated on the BBC and without the license, we would not have them.

For all BBC's flaws, it still has a pretty good success rate for quality programs, even if you do have to delve into the digital channels at ridiculous hours to find it.

Let's also not forget that BBC (along with itv) helped set up freesat and you've got the I player and transmitter maintenance, too.

The only thing that worries me is this ridiculous "comedy" conduct code that they've created. I hope that withers and dies quickly.

MothballsWallet

Nah, the remainder goes towards Jonathan Ross' over-inflated salary

Nilrem

MothballsWallet wrote: »

Nah, the remainder goes towards Jonathan Ross' over-inflated salary

I suspect you're joking there
But IIRC Ross doesn't get paid by the BBC personally, his production company gets paid to produce the shows he's in, and his production company then pay for all the costs involved out of that (his salary, the salary of all the staff involved, the studio rental*, guest expenses etc).

All told assuming the "reported" payment to his company is correct (6 million a year), it's probably quite a good deal for the BBC as they get (from memory) something like 26 episodes of Friday Night, about 26 episodes of Film, and all his radio/other work per year, and broken down the cost per hour of content is pretty low to average (the BBC publish a list of roughly what they normally pay per hour of content).


Vyle, aye it's surprising how much of the content on the non BBC (non licence fee paid for) channels actually originates with the BBC, either directly or via co-productions.
Even ITV are showing old BBC content, and have started making deals with BBCWW (non licence fee**) to help pay for their new content (IIRC Primevil on ITV was going to be scrapped, but BBCWW is helping pay for the new series as part of a deal to distribute it abroad, from which the BBC should eventually see a return).

Ultimately the BBC is probably the only Broadcaster in the UK who not only doesn't have to worry about keeping advertisers happy, but doesn't have to worry about turning a profit on everything they do, which allows for a long term view.
Hence they are able to take risks with programming that may not be immediately popular/get huge ratings, and it does tend to show in their output, given the range of what they can do.

It's also worth noting that a lot of what we take for granted in TV broadcast tech was developed/initially researched by the BBC (I beleive they had one of the first, if not the first video digital recorders, they developed much of NICAM stereo, worked on the initial digital broadcasting technologies etc).

Sorry for the long post


*Which goes straight back to the BBC at a rate of several tens of thousands of pounds per day for his Friday Night show.

**From memory the BBCWW operation is separate from the BBC, and basically acts as a distributor/marketing arm for content outside the UK, both for the BBC's own stuff and other companies. It operates exactly the same way as other such distributors (it has to pay the same sort of price for any content it distributes as an outside company would), except any profit they make is largely returned to the BBC to help subsidise further BBC content, rather than to shareholders.

positive1_2

yip, so we are all in agreement the BBC is just pants, over paid morons on a guaranteed income, with forced subscription nationwide..

RobertoMoir

positive1 wrote: »

your thoughts?

My thoughts? Ok... Your post is a tedious re-hash of something that has been dragged up time and time again without doing anything besides creating a thread that eventually turns into a flame war.

Oh and if you think that being forced to pay the licence fee is a breach of your human rights then the European courts are over there. Do let us know how you get on.

giantmutantbroccoli

Personally I'm happy to pay the licence fee. The BBC provides four main channels (BBC1-4) that I watch plus a 24hour news channel I watch occasionally and numerous regional channels I can have a peek at if I'm ever curious as to what the news would sound like in Gaelic. And the CBBC channel that of course I'm too old for, but I do like to watch the Sarah Jane Adventures
It also provides the iPlayer and the BBC news website. Most of my favourite programs originated on the BBC. There's no adverts on their channels and the fee is pretty small, a massive plus when you compare them to c**p like Sky where you pay through the nose and in return get ads every 5min and 300+ channels of repeats.
In short I think the BBC is brilliant, and I'm not the only one. OP I find it annoying that you assume "most people" won't watch BBC1.

marleyboy

I liken this dispute to someone saying "I rent a three bedroomed house, but only use two of the bedroom's, should I have to pay for the third room, just because its "available" for me.

Nobody wants to pay the licence fee, but unfortunately thats the way the wafer crumbles, when purchasing a TV.

I do have to point out the programme on not so long ago (cant remember its name it might have been Panorama), regarding how much the BBC staff and executives were charging (us licence payers) for their 1st class flights, chauffeur driven cars and not forgetting the taxi fares. BBC are sweating at the moment after the Government discussed "spreading" the money to pay for "regional" news on rival channels.

As it is the public who fund them, ultimately it is us public who should say what is spent where and just how much of it.

isplumm

positive1 wrote: »

yip, so we are all in agreement the BBC is just pants, over paid morons on a guaranteed income, with forced subscription nationwide..

Nope not at all .. i enjoy BBC ... happy to pay fee

Mark

cajef

positive1 wrote: »

so we are all in agreement the BBC is just pants, over paid morons on a guaranteed income, with forced subscription nationwide..

How do you manage to deduce that from the posts on here, no we are not all in agreement, that is just some one sided false interpretation and opinion you have come up with.

Incidentally I notice you have never come up with a reply to my comments in post #19 of this thread.

Esqui

isplumm wrote: »

Nope not at all .. i enjoy BBC ... happy to pay fee

Mark

This on toast.