BBC iPlayer now requires your address.

Cornucopia

Robisere wrote: »

Many are forgetting something about the BBC: it is respected around the world by people whose nations do not have anything like it.

I'm not sure "many" are forgetting that. It simply isn't relevant to the discussion which is about iPlayer and Radio iPlayer and the requirement to provide demographic info to obtain a log-in.

FWIW, I suspect most of those people around the World know very little about what the BBC is, and in many cases would be horrified if they were told the truth about the Licence Fee that funds it.

A Public, publicly-financed broadcaster which shows programmes without annoying ads and Sponsors.

I take the point (and the clarification by Silverwhistle) that this ultimately comes down to a personal view as to whether "just TV" qualifies for a Welfare State approach to funding and operation. Personally, I don't think it does and furthermore I don't think that the way it manages itself is consistent with that model (in terms of profligacy, secrecy and public accountability).

There are various commercial providers of TV/Video without advertising. I am not convinced that advertising really puts off viewers that much, and that even if it did, it would be a rational response to the realities of broadcasting.

The fact is, that it is being attacked on all sides in its own country, by the government, the media and the sneering, chattering classes.

I agree with Silverwhistle, here. I think you have either misunderstood the opposition to the BBC or the term "chattering classes". I think most people understand "chattering classes" to mean Middle Class liberals, who are probably some of the BBC's most vehement supporters.

The BBC has opponents, because there is much to oppose - at the same time, I see the ridiculousness of some of it (akin to an Ant opposing an Elephant). In some cases it is conceivable that it could it could change for the better under the force of opposition. For me, if it cleaned up its act in terms of reining-in TV Licensing, and began operating it consistently with the law and the principles of civil society, I would re-evaluate my views.

Others have more entrenched opinions, because their objections are more fundamental. Either way, there is no point in telling them that they don't understand, because the truth is that they understand all too well, and have simply reached a conclusion that you disagree with, possibly by considering the same facts from a different perspective.

It's just telly, get over it!

Indeed. But I think that the BBC sees itself as way more important than that.

Robisere

You do not explain the source of those " various commercial providers of TV/Video without advertising. " I know of none.

It's simple: if you want to see the end of broadcasting without advertising, then let's kill off the BBC by removing the licence fee. Personally, I would rather watch programmes on BBC channels that I like, without 5 minutes of interruptions every 10 or 15 minutes. How many programmes on other channels do you watch, which insult the audience by telling them the last 5 minutes of what they were watching, before an ad?

There is quite a bit to dislike about the Beeb, but "...the BBC sees itself as way more important than that. " - is IMO, a ridiculous, unfounded statement without proof. How you come to that conclusion, is in my judgement, simply a product of your own imagination. You are assigning a large Corporation, with thousands of employees, a single personality.

On the whole, I like the present BBC setup. It could be improved, I admit, but it has a quality and broad coverage that the competition lacks. If it goes, there will be no replacement.

And that is my last on this Thread, I'm done here.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Robisere wrote: »

You do not explain the source of those " various commercial providers of TV/Video without advertising. " I know of none.

It's simple: if you want to see the end of broadcasting without advertising, then let's kill off the BBC by removing the licence fee. Personally, I would rather watch programmes on BBC channels that I like, without 5 minutes of interruptions every 10 or 15 minutes. How many programmes on other channels do you watch, which insult the audience by telling them the last 5 minutes of what they were watching, before an ad?

There is quite a bit to dislike about the Beeb, but "...the BBC sees itself as way more important than that. " - is IMO, a ridiculous, unfounded statement without proof. How you come to that conclusion, is in my judgement, simply a product of your own imagination. You are assigning a large Corporation, with thousands of employees, a single personality.

On the whole, I like the present BBC setup. It could be improved, I admit, but it has a quality and broad coverage that the competition lacks. If it goes, there will be no replacement.

And that is my last on this Thread, I'm done here.

Netflix, Amazon Prime, Rakuten TV, Google Play TV & Movies are but a few.

Cornucopia

Robisere wrote: »

You do not explain the source of those " various commercial providers of TV/Video without advertising. " I know of none.

I didn't name them, because as noted by the previous poster, they spring readily to mind... to anyone with an interest in the diversity of UK broadcasting.

It's simple: if you want to see the end of broadcasting without advertising, then let's kill off the BBC by removing the licence fee.

Given that broadcasting without ads is readily available outside the BBC, I think your premise is unfounded. I also think you are being a little melodramatic by linking the continued existence of the BBC solely to the Licence (Fee). There must be a number of possible alternative funding methods, some of which may well have advantages over the present approach.

Personally, I would rather watch programmes on BBC channels that I like, without 5 minutes of interruptions every 10 or 15 minutes. How many programmes on other channels do you watch, which insult the audience by telling them the last 5 minutes of what they were watching, before an ad?

On Netflix, not only do they not do that (no need), but even the "previously on..." part can be skipped on some series. The technology of broadcasting marches on...

For a long while I used to say: "If people want to pay for broadcasting without ads, then the market will provide it". I don't say that any more, because the market is providing it.

There is quite a bit to dislike about the Beeb, but "...the BBC sees itself as way more important than that. " - is IMO, a ridiculous, unfounded statement without proof. How you come to that conclusion, is in my judgement, simply a product of your own imagination. You are assigning a large Corporation, with thousands of employees, a single personality.

Many corporations endeavour to present themselves as the Corporate hive - the industrious "we". I don't think that the BBC is particularly remarkable in that. However, between the constant defenders and its own self-defensive instincts, I think it is becoming very insular and resistant to change. Certainly it could only benefit from a major re-think on how it engages with its funders/audiences.

On the whole, I like the present BBC setup. It could be improved, I admit, but it has a quality and broad coverage that the competition lacks. If it goes, there will be no replacement.

One of the characteristics of this topic is that most people (and I include myself in that) simply do not have the time and the energy to keep themselves fully up to date with all that there is available.

They tune in to the channel(s) they usually tune to, watch the programs they usually watch, and make a mental note to watch the programs that are trailed after the programs they usually watch. It's a recipe for focusing on a small number of broadcasting outlets, which is what the broadcasters want. As Garry Shandling used to say: "No flipping".

I don't have an issue with that, but it does have implications for discussions like this (and I accept that there is sometimes a cost to even try a particular pay-TV platform). I tend to assume that everyone is reasonably familar with all the major platforms and outlets: certainly Freeview, Freesat, Sky, Virgin, Now TV, Netflix, Amazon and Youtube.

As such, I won't bother asking whether you are aware of all the alternatives when you rate the BBC so highly - not least because you flagged your last post as your last post.

[Deleted User]

@davidmichaels

Only 3 posts and all 3 mentioning the same website, not very subtle.


Edit: the .co.uk version of that web address gets flagged as dodgy by my browser so be aware.

itstheone

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

@davidmichaels

Only 3 posts and all 3 mentioning the same website, not very subtle.


Edit: the .co.uk version of that web address gets flagged as dodgy by my browser so be aware.

Wrong thread?

forgotmyname

itstheone wrote: »

Wrong thread?

Nope, they just commented on a spammer who appears to have had his posts removed.

Here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/member.php?u=2733413

Zero posts.