Spending Review: TV licence frozen for six years

rapido

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

We are the only mugs in the world who pay a licence fee

Complete rubbish.

Most of the rest of the world have a tv licensing system.

-rapido

chattychappy

rapido wrote: »

Complete rubbish.

Most of the rest of the world have a tv licensing system.

-rapido

Nonsense. None of the countries I've lived in have required me to buy a licence except the UK. I'm looking at an legal unlicensed TV right now as I have the luxury of not being in the UK.

Also, only in the UK have I been required to give my address when I buy a TV from a shop just so the database of TV owners can be updated.

I've also had a few foreign friends in the UK who have been "done" because they didn't have a licence out of ignorance. One girl ignored a letter by the TV licensing people assuming it was just a scam because she didn't believe it could be true.

opinions4u

While I support the concept of the Licence Fee (I think it's preferable to funding it via government collected taxes) I do think there should be a long debate about what we expect it to deliver for us.

Some examples about where services could be reduced or commercialised:

1) The web site. An extraordinary achieivement, but it is massive. Beyond news and sport it should become self-funding and open to advertising.
2) Digital services. Last time I looked, they spent more on these than Sky spend on Premiership football coverage. Do the beeb really need all those extra poor quality channels?
3) Radio One. Commercialise it completely.

I'm sure the list could be elongated, but I reckon those suggestions alone could knock £30 off the licence fee.

In the end, I think the Tories felt that they owed the Beeb a slap round the chops for 30 years of "slightly left leaning" reporting. This is the first blow.

rapido

chattychappy wrote: »

Nonsense. None of the countries I've lived in have required me to buy a licence except the UK.

So what?

Just because you didn't live in a country that uses a tv licensing system proves that no other country uses television licensing?

How ridiculous.

I once lived in France, they drove on the right. Therefore all other countries in the world drive on the right. What sort of logic is that?

-rapido

chattychappy

opinions4u wrote: »

1) The web site. An extraordinary achieivement, but it is massive. Beyond news and sport it should become self-funding and open to advertising.

Funny thing is that outside the UK you do get advertising. This annoys me - I pay the licence fee in the UK but am abroad alot. When I access the site you get all kinds of advertising pop up. And stuff like Doctor Who is available for rent around the corner in Blockbuster.

I feel this is rather unfair on commercial companies - the BBC are getting licence money on the one hand, but also competing for advertising and rental spend on the other. Should be one or the other IMHO.

The live TV stuff (and some stored stuff) is blocked. So I had the daft situation of not even being able to watch the Queen's Speech at Christmas live because it was "not available in your area". OK, small issue. But if the BBC can't get it's act together to make that happen, then I really think it's lost it's way.

rapido

chattychappy wrote: »

I feel this is rather unfair on commercial companies - the BBC are getting licence money on the one hand, but also competing for advertising and rental spend on the other. Should be one or the other IMHO.

They are actually doing neither simultaneously, so it IS one or the other. In the UK, the website is funded by the licence fee payer.

However abroad, no UK licence fee is collected of course, therefore they must fund via other methods, therefore advertising.

The other alternative was for the BBC website to be blocked abroad.

-rapido

chattychappy

rapido wrote: »

They are actually doing neither simultaneously, so it IS one or the other. In the UK, the website is funded by the licence fee payer.

However abroad, no UK licence fee is collected of course, therefore they must fund via other methods, therefore advertising.

The other alternative was for the BBC website to be blocked abroad.

-rapido

But I AM paying the licence fee for 12 months a year - just can only access the content for some of the year. Other subscriptions I have are accessible wherever I am.

The competition concern was greater though. They effectively can produce a product through a subsidy - the website is funded by the UK licence payer which doesn't put it on a level playing field outside of the UK when it competes for advertising with other providers (eg CNN). It IS the same website (different if they were were two distinct products) - so the UK "subsidy" gives it a head start.

Within the UK it has probably stifled development by other providers.

rapido

chattychappy wrote: »

But I AM paying the licence fee for 12 months a year - just can only access the content for some of the year.

This may be true, unfortunately a licencing system is a lot more simpler and makes assumptions compared to a subscription system.

Therefore the assumption is that the majority of website users in the UK will be members of licence paying households, and the majority of those elsewhere will not be UK licence payers.

BTW, you can get refunds for unused quarters of a 12 month licence (e.g. whilst abroad and you are not watching tv in the UK).

-rapido

le_loup

opinions4u wrote: »

Do the beeb really need all those extra poor quality channels?

I assume you don't watch BBC 4 or the BBC News channel or BBC Parliament.

opinions4u wrote: »

In the end, I think the Tories felt that they owed the Beeb a slap round the chops for 30 years of "slightly left leaning" reporting. This is the first blow.

Now, that is true and all on the instruction of Mr M. The Sunday Times has had two anti BBC articles every week this year. Funny how "balanced reporting" is always construed by the right as a left bias.

le_loup

chattychappy wrote: »

Within the UK it has probably stifled development by other providers.

What, like Channel 5?
Yes please, let's have more of that.