'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion

vokesey

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

Yeah, but when the choices are between a bunch of things that are all trade-offs they suddenly don't look so appealing...

so don't get em! that's your choice!!

tghe-retford

vokesey wrote: »

if he tries to create a monopoly then the competitions committee may want to know, Because monopolies are somewhat frowned upon, thus i think its kind of unlikely.

I, along with someone else have sent a complaint with accompanying documents about what we believe is an anti-competitve decision by Ofcom to allow Sky to launch a pay TV service through an aerial titled "Picnic" to the European Commissioner for Competition. The EC will not take any action and with the UK Government owing Murdoch a favour, nor will the Competition Commission. Unfortunately the regulators are allowing Sky, if they choose to of course, make it kind of likely.

Should the BBC become voluntary subscription and with their previous use of NDS Group technology also used by Sky (on Sky's satellite service, they have no choice), then Sky (and Murdoch should he take full control) will certainly with their technology, ideology and financial clout would likely become the gatekeeper to the BBC on both terrestrial and satellite television, the two biggest TV platforms in the UK = 84.7% of viewing on main TV's and for many people, the only choices.

vokesey

tghe-retford wrote: »

I, along with someone else have sent a complaint with accompanying documents about what we believe is an anti-competitve decision by Ofcom to allow Sky to launch a pay TV service through an aerial titled "Picnic" to the European Commissioner for Competition. The EC will not take any action and with the UK Government owing Murdoch a favour, nor will the Competition Commission. Unfortunately the regulators are allowing Sky, if they choose to of course, make it kind of likely.

Should the BBC become voluntary subscription and with their previous use of NDS Group technology also used by Sky (on Sky's satellite service, they have no choice), then Sky (and Murdoch should he take full control) will certainly with their technology, ideology and financial clout would likely become the gatekeeper to the BBC on both terrestrial and satellite television, the two biggest TV platforms in the UK = 84.7% of viewing on main TV's and for many people, the only choices.

Well in that case the debate is all pointless! but everyone of my points are still valid.
So if all this conspiracy comes to fruition, i recommend we all ditch our sky subscriptions etc etc and frequent blockbuster a whole lot more. Or is he gunning for them too?!
Yes i am taking the !!!!, as i suspect are you!
I mean come on, if all that is true then surely he'd just buy up the beeb and crack on regardless!

lucylucky

vokesey can you help with my query in post #337?

As for choice which you keep mentioning, I cannot choose what I want to receive on Sky.

It is impossible to pay for the channels you wish to receive as they are not available individually so I, and others, are forced to pay for things we never watch, just like you and the BBC

It is not fair.

vokesey

lucylucky wrote: »

vokesey can you help with my query in post #337?

As for choice which you keep mentioning, I cannot choose what I want to receive on Sky.

It is impossible to pay for the channels you wish to receive as they are not available individually so I, and others, are forced to pay for things we never watch, just like you and the BBC

It is not fair.

certainly.I believe the government take a slice of the bbc's profits, the as they do from tobacco and alcohol revenue.
Now to choice, the difference is quite simple, if you want sky you pay for it, but yes you have to accept a shed load of rubbish to get what you want. But the choice is yours, no one is making you pay for sky.
I take your point, but the stark difference is you're paying for the bbc regardless. you only pay for sky etc if you ask for it. You can choose what you want, it just comes with extras that you don't. As someone said before, "it's not a choice if all you have to choose from is rubbish" Well i agree in a sense, but it is still a choice wether you pay for it.I know exactly how you feel, i have HD, Which means for me to get the HD channels, i also have to have the SD version of the same channel, so in effect i pay for the same channel twice. But then that's similar to the extra bbc channels that just show what used to be on 1 & 2. Except with a better picture.

Hope that's gone some way to clearing it up.:)

traivelinphil

I do quite like the BBC but find the licence fee too expensive. I watch very little TV so avoid the licence fee by only watching TV through the internet. A licence is (presently) not needed for this as long as live broadcasts aren't viewed. TV from all across the world can be viewed via the internet, and the BBC can be viewed from outside the UK by anyone.

vokesey

traivelinphil wrote: »

I do quite like the BBC but find the licence fee too expensive. I watch very little TV so avoid the licence fee by only watching TV through the internet. A licence is (presently) not needed for this as long as live broadcasts aren't viewed. TV from all across the world can be viewed via the internet, and the BBC can be viewed from outside the UK by anyone.

free of charge, another reason to be annoyed!

tghe-retford

vokesey wrote: »

I mean come on, if all that is true then surely he'd just buy up the beeb and crack on regardless!

Considering the BBC is public owned, the Government would have to waive through any sale of the BBC (like it would for say Royal Mail or the past privatisation of the utilities). If the BBC were to be sold to an Australian born, American citizen I suspect you'll see protests on the streets - no Government would dare sell a major British organisation to a foreign interest, they'll be punished at the voting booth!

And any who, Sky (with Murdoch if he gets full control) may not want to buy the BBC. Sky were favourites to buy Channel 5 until a week or so ago when they dropped out, now Richard Desmond has bought it. Murdoch's ideology would see him rather cut down or wipe out the BBC rather than buy it and carry it on. That's why one campaign organisation is now starting to petition Vince Cable to stop Murdoch getting full control of Sky and to save the BBC:

Sources:

• http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/murdoch
• http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/bbc-license-fee

vokesey

tghe-retford wrote: »

Considering the BBC is public owned, the Government would have to waive through any sale of the BBC (like it would for say Royal Mail or the past privatisation of the utilities). If the BBC were to be sold to an Australian born, American citizen I suspect you'll see protests on the streets - no Government would dare sell a major British organisation to a foreign interest, they'll be punished at the voting booth!

And any who, Sky (with Murdoch if he gets full control) may not want to buy the BBC. Sky were favourites to buy Channel 5 until a week or so ago when they dropped out, now Richard Desmond has bought it. Murdoch's ideology would see him rather cut down or wipe out the BBC rather than buy it and carry it on. That's why one campaign organisation is now starting to petition Vince Cable to stop Murdoch getting full control of Sky and to save the BBC:

Sources:

• http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/murdoch
• http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/bbc-license-fee

But just bear in mind. if he gained full control how stupid would he be to price everyone out of having his product? because the majority on here seem to think that is what is likely, how long will he last if no one can afford it? or if no one used it?
There are plenty of options and methods of attaining entertainment these days, and they don't all involve a tv.

neilpost

Saucepot wrote: »

The value of the BBC is not the issue.

The issue is that all are forced to pay the TV tax if they wish to consume TV. Sky charges are not compulsary & ITV is advertising led and free at the point of use.

I mean, you can be criminalized in the UK for watching TV if you don't pay for the beeb. The main targets of convictions are the poor.

Would you accept a newspaper tax? That you could not buy a newspaper unless you first bought a copy of the guardian?

Scrap the TV poll tax!

In answer to this



1. Not all the licence fee money goes to the BBC, some indeed is going to subsidise digital switchover schemes - Sky ran one in the Border TV area, and gave poor people Sky Plus boxes.
2. Go to the USA, and see what the commercial everything, lowest common denominator gets you. As with most things in the USA, what you get for free is limited, and the rest you need to pay for. The USA is not a nice place if you have no money.
3. Advertising. So the cost of supporting this multi-billion pound lavishly wasteful luvvy and celeb schmoozing business gets put on the cost of everything that you buy is escaping you.... yet you complain about a TV poll tax. I already like Crunchy Nut (Cornflakes), I don't need for them to be re-launched at great expense every 3-4 years, or for Tesco to innanely tell me 'Every Little helps', when they won't open me a checkout as they have !!!!!! all staff whilst raking in £3bn profits.

BBC best value in the world ever. Long may it keep going, and all goverments leave it alone.

--

Wonder how long until it is 'Tits out' @ Channel 5 again, now it has changed owners again, whilst we are talking lowest common denominators :rotfl: