TV Licence

jimkenyon

will-in-estoril wrote: »

That is far too simplistic. Which competition has the BBC used the licence fee to see off? Choices also run much deeper than one of having to pay: choice is also about content and variety. $ky has had 20 years in the pay satellite business. What quality drama has it produced? How has it educated? $ky has an effective monopoly in the pay tv market: it has used its position to try and see off competition, notably its access charges to Virgin Media and its acquisition of a stake in ITV, which, thankfully, has backfired spectacularly.

The BBC has also resisted in bidding for the rights to certain live sports: a great example is the EPL, where it has the rights only to limited highlights, nevertheless making top flight football available to all free to air with 'Match of the Day'.

In respect of regional news, no other broadcaster apart from the BBC seems particularly interested any more. The old regional ITV franchisees were, but are sadly no longer. Granada, Thames, ATV etc all coexisted with the BBC in a duopoloy; yet conversely, in a more deregulated market ITV plc says that it cannot afford regional programming. As for $ky, when have they really been interested in anything home grown, let alone regional? The bottom line is that the BBC provides choices commercial broadcasters cannot or will not provide.

The BBC is a worldwide name or brand. There is not a single other national broadcaster which can come close: not TF, RAI or TVE.

Sure, the BBC is not perfect: BBC3 TV remains rather suspect, for example. Yet the alternatives do not bear thinking about.

The BBC are a bloated bureaucracy. For instance how many people did they send to cover the Football World Cup Draw? How much did they pay Jonathan Ross? Their taxpayer funded financial muscle has been used to squeeze local commercial radio stations, magazine companies, etc. David Cameron has it right when he states that regulations need changing to allow commercial enterprises to compete with the BBC.
My original comment was that you have a choice whether to pay for Sky. With the BBC you have no choice whatsoever. If the BBC is so good then let them abandon the licence fee and charge a subscription fee for their services.
One final point – how many repeats did the BBC show over the holiday period?

will-in-estoril

jimkenyon wrote: »

The BBC are a bloated bureaucracy. For instance how many people did they send to cover the Football World Cup Draw? How much did they pay Jonathan Ross? Their taxpayer funded financial muscle has been used to squeeze local commercial radio stations, magazine companies, etc. David Cameron has it right when he states that regulations need changing to allow commercial enterprises to compete with the BBC.
My original comment was that you have a choice whether to pay for Sky. With the BBC you have no choice whatsoever. If the BBC is so good then let them abandon the licence fee and charge a subscription fee for their services.
One final point – how many repeats did the BBC show over the holiday period?

1. 'Bloated bureaucracy': Daily Mail cliche, which is far from the truth. Look at the BBC re-organisation.
2. Jonathan Ross: like millions of others, I tuned in every week. Loved his Radio 2 show! Overpaid? Maybe, but less than he would have earned in commercial sector.
3. How has the BBC used its financial muscle to squeeze anyone? Another Daily Mailer, but absolutely no evidence. Local radio relies on advertising, which has collapsed during the recession, caused by fat cat bankers, not the BBC!!
4. BBC football coverage is fantastic. I didn't count how many reporters were at World Cup draw, but I did enjoy the coverage!!
5. I have already touched on choice. Lots of things are funded by taxation: the NHS, your bins being emptied and the police. No-one would suggest abolishing these and replacing them by BUPA, private refuse collections and G4S keeping our streets safe...or would they??!!
6. The BBC showed repeats over the holidays, so did ITV, Channel 4 and Sky. The alternative would be 100% new programming, which would no doubt increase the 'bloating'!;)

superscaper

will-in-estoril wrote: »

I have already touched on choice. Lots of things are funded by taxation: the NHS, your bins being emptied and the police. No-one would suggest abolishing these and replacing them by BUPA, private refuse collections and G4S keeping our streets safe...or would they??!!

I think the current way of funding for BBC is fine (my personal opinion) but I have to question here are you seriously comparing watching specific TV to healthcare, law enforcement and sanitation, which are not luxuries?

transgenic

jimkenyon wrote: »

My original comment was that you have a choice whether to pay for Sky. With the BBC you have no choice whatsoever. If the BBC is so good then let them abandon the licence fee and charge a subscription fee for their services.

I very rarely utilise any BBC service or watch any programming so I see absolutely no valid reason to finance them in order to watch other channels - it is an unfair advantage in what is supposed to be a free-market economy. Think about it - other TV channels finance their endevours privately however because of the law which makes us all pay the TV licence, the BBC will do fine regardless of their programming due to us paying an extortionate amount to finance it. I completely agree - we should abolish the TV licence. If people like their programming, companies will pay to advertise as with any other channel however if they suffer financially - then they should improve the quality of the programming.

Finally - why should my money finance idiots like Chris Moyles. The highest paid DJ I think I read somewhere. All he does is complain and talk a load of nonsense. I listen to the radio to listen to music, not listen to an idiot talk ****.

will-in-estoril wrote: »

The BBC is a worldwide name or brand. There is not a single other national broadcaster which can come close: not TF, RAI or TVE.

How about Fox?

superscaper

transgenic wrote: »

Finally - why should my money finance idiots like Chris Moyles. The highest paid DJ I think I read somewhere. All he does is complain and talk a load of nonsense. I listen to the radio to listen to music, not listen to an idiot talk ****.

An interesting one especially as although the TV licence funds this, you don't need a TV licence for the radio. This is the bit I'm unsure about, why should the funding be poured into services where people don't actually need a licence to use.

will-in-estoril

superscaper wrote: »

I think the current way of funding for BBC is fine (my personal opinion) but I have to question here are you seriously comparing watching specific TV to healthcare, law enforcement and sanitation, which are not luxuries?

Taxation (I accept that the TV licence fee is a tax) is used to fund services and institutions which some may like and some may not, and which some may use and some may not. Taxation has funded/funds the monarchy, the 2012 Olympic Games and libraries to name but three. Not everyone uses/likes all of these, nor are they essential in terms of life or death.Yet they are all important in terms of shaping the type of society we are or want. The BBC is a public service broadcaster and is more than merely a TV or radio company, in that it does have responsibility to educate and inform as well as entertain.

will-in-estoril

transgenic wrote: »

How about Fox?

You've got me on that one!


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

ckerrd

transgenic wrote: »

I very rarely utilise any BBC service or watch any programming so I see absolutely no valid reason to finance them in order to watch other channels - it is an unfair advantage in what is supposed to be a free-market economy. Think about it - other TV channels finance their endevours privately however because of the law which makes us all pay the TV licence, the BBC will do fine regardless of their programming due to us paying an extortionate amount to finance it. I completely agree - we should abolish the TV licence. If people like their programming, companies will pay to advertise as with any other channel however if they suffer financially - then they should improve the quality of the programming.

Finally - why should my money finance idiots like Chris Moyles. The highest paid DJ I think I read somewhere. All he does is complain and talk a load of nonsense. I listen to the radio to listen to music, not listen to an idiot talk ****.



How about Fox?

Fortunately not:D

Inactive

transgenic wrote: »

How about Fox?

Best laugh I have had all week, thanks for that.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

davidlizard

I would argue that some of BBCs radio output constitutes valuable public service broadcasting.

However, these days much of their radio output - especially Radio 1 and in many areas local radio - are very well served by commercial radio, then whether BBC (and therefore the licence payer) should continue to fund these stations is increasingly open to question.

I would fund the radio and TV transmitter network from general taxation as these are an essential part of the countries infrastructure, and also fund a very reduced BBC radio network in this manner. The rest can be left to commercial radio stations, with licences issued (as happens now) to ensure a suitably diverse choice of content is available. Not having to compete with BBC (who get much of the prime FM bandwidth) will make commercial radio other than 24/7 pop music more viable.

I would have BBC radio reduced to a handful of stations, perhaps something along the lines of:
- Current affairs (similar to Radio 4)
- Culture and sport (a radio 3/4/5 hybrid)
- World service