TV Licence cancellation

Cornucopia

I don't understand in the sense of this argument doesn't really make sense...

What viewership level do you think the BBC would drop to if it went to subscription?

Kurtis_Blue

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't understand in the sense of this argument doesn't really make sense...

What viewership level do you think the BBC would drop to if it went to subscription?

What do you not understand?

I have no idea what levels subscription would run at, but pretty sure i t would be a lot less than pay now.

Cornucopia

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

What do you not understand?

The argument doesn't make sense, and is somewhat tautological. On the one hand, we are told that the BBC is very popular, and people would choose to view it even if the Licence Fee were more. On the other hand, when a change to a Subscription is mentioned people get very coy and start muttering about reduced viewership leading to the loss of content or the shutdown of the service.

It's a simple question: how popular is the BBC really, and how many people would continue to subscribe (at a similar cost) if it became optional.

I have no idea what levels subscription would run at, but pretty sure i t would be a lot less than pay now.

Which means that there are a lot of people who are paying now purely because they are forced to.

My problem with this is two-fold:-

1. The most expensive content on BBC is the entertainment. I don't think that compulsory public funding should be used to fund that.

2. The enforcement policy and practice is wholly suspect, and if that is the best that a wealthy public body like the BBC can do, then Government needs to step in and stop them.

Kurtis_Blue

Cornucopia wrote: »

The argument doesn't make sense, and is somewhat tautological. On the one hand, we are told that the BBC is very popular, and people would choose to view it even if the Licence Fee were more. On the other hand, when a change to a Subscription is mentioned people get very coy and start muttering about reduced viewership leading to the loss of content or the shutdown of the service.

It's a simple question: how popular is the BBC really, and how many people would continue to subscribe (at a similar cost) if it became optional.

Which means that there are a lot of people who are paying now purely because they are forced to.

My problem with this is two-fold:-

1. The most expensive content on BBC is the entertainment. I don't think that compulsory public funding should be used to fund that.

2. The enforcement policy and practice is wholly suspect, and if that is the best that a wealthy public body like the BBC can do, then Government needs to step in and stop them.

Coudnt agree more with point 1, maybe point 2 to a lesser degree. But that does not mean the TVL should be scrapped. it means the BBC needs to get better and refocus on educational programming.

But I don't see this question as relevant.
It's a simple question: how popular is the BBC really, and how many people would continue to subscribe (at a similar cost) if it became optional.
Give people the choice to stop paying for most publicly funded things they will do so, doesn't make them correct.

I have a huge list of things I would love to stop funding that I have no use for, it possibly wouldn't be best for society.

wiogs

Retrogamer wrote: »

There's a part in the legislation that i can't remember exactly what it says, but it allows for prosecution when someone isn't watching live TV but has hardware connected that allow the TV to receive live broadcasts.
There have been successful prosecutions brought forward with it.

It was introduced to allow prosecution of people not caught watching live TV, but caught with an aerial connected to the TV set.

As Cornucopia says it is much more complicated than that.

You need not have an aerial/dish or even a TV to be capable of watching live TV. That does not mean that simply because you have the capability you require a licence.

Cornucopia

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Coudnt agree more with point 1, maybe point 2 to a lesser degree. But that does not mean the TVL should be scrapped. it means the BBC needs to get better and refocus on educational programming.

I think you have to have experienced TVL personally to realise just how objectionable they are.

My understanding is that the BBC and its supporters claim that the entertainment is necessary to both justify the mass payment of the licence fee (something for everyone) and because worthier programming can be "up-sold" to viewers by advertising around entertainment. IMHO, the former argument supports the notion that pure PSB may not be the popular choice, and the latter argument is simply patronising and is also not borne out by the BBC's own choices about how they structure their services.

But I don't see this question as relevant.
It's a simple question: how popular is the BBC really, and how many people would continue to subscribe (at a similar cost) if it became optional.
Give people the choice to stop paying for most publicly funded things they will do so, doesn't make them correct.

I have a huge list of things I would love to stop funding that I have no use for, it possibly wouldn't be best for society.

Sure. But not all of them come with sequins.

Kurtis_Blue

Cornucopia wrote: »

Sure. But not all of them come with sequins.

Correct, others come with duck houses, depleted uranium shells....

Some times I prefer sequins.

Knackeredoldbat

So it appears that the freesat box is the issue? If only someone had said that at the beginning.....

Maybe I'll save even more money by not getting one, we've definitely got an xbox somewhere!

Thanks for all your help

Cornucopia

To be fair, Duck Houses and depleted Uranium shells are examples of bad behaviours in public service.

Just as false prosecutions by BBC/TVL are. There is a dark heart lurking behind the sequins. (Well there would kind of have to be).

Cornucopia

Knackeredoldbat wrote: »

So it appears that the freesat box is the issue? If only someone had said that at the beginning.....

Maybe I'll save even more money by not getting one, we've definitely got an xbox somewhere!

It's certainly worth trying any potentially suitable equipment you already have. It's also worth noting that NowTV is only £10, and Chromecast (I think you need a smartphone to use this) is only £30, so there are some pretty affordable options out there.

Unfortunately, we are not quite at the point of plug and play with this technology yet. So you need to do a bit of research to find out what services are available on which bit of kit.

I took a free Youview box from Talktalk, which has now matured and gone out of contract ie. I'm not paying for it any more. I get: iPlayer, ITV player, 40D, Demand 5, UKTV (incl. Dave OD), Now TV (that I've never used), S4C-OD and Quest-OD.

I'm on Fibre BB, so my playback is extremely good (though it remains not as good overall as broadcast).