Cancelled my TV Licence.... and feel strangely liberated!

welshbookworm

I haven't had a TV licence for over 5 years now and I don't miss it. I find enough on the internet for free to keep me amused.

Cornucopia

iniltous said:

But I’m  not expecting any right wingers to agree, there probably is something in their ‘balance’ if both sides think the other gets an easy ride, what do you consider to  be balanced mainstream media , The Daily Heil , or the Stun ?, perhaps you can get Fox News in a stream 

For me, it's not a question of overt bias - I think BBC News & Current Affairs always did a reasonable job in that respect.   The issue is with the kind of presumptions that are made that sit behind the headlines.    It's an important question of how news values reflect the diversity of the Public (or of LF-payers).   It's not just me who thinks that, OFCOM says so, too.

iniltous said:

The BBC is in a strange position, why would ‘talent’ work for the BBC for less than they could earn for a commercial broadcaster , if they only employ ‘amateurs’ and pay salaries commensurate with that level of ability, they would get complaints that the ‘quality’ of BBC output is poor, and those that point at ‘trash’ TV that they may produce , if they are obliged to provide something for everyone, you have to accept trash has an audience.

Is that how it works, though?   Is Gary Linekar (for example) worth the cash because he is good at his job (better than anyone else could conceivably be), or because he is famous?

I think there is prestige in working for the BBC, that isn't necessarily the same, say, at Sky.    There is also the potential for a long-term relationship with the BBC, whereas in commercial broadcasters, your position is (generally) only as safe as the audience figures for your latest project.   The BBC could contractualise this into 5-year contracts, say, at a lower figure than commercial media with RPI increases built-in, but I suspect that many staff in front of the cameras have dreams of an even bigger break on top of the break they already have, so it may not suit them.

I agree with your point about a BBC running on subscriptions becoming tilted towards its audience's perceived politics, but I don't think there is any alternative.   I just don't see TV as something that requires forced payment. 

iniltous

Gary Lineker always used as an example , he also works for BT Sport, his BBC earnings  have  to be made public , his BT earnings don’t, it’s possible BT pay GL more than the BBC do....I dare say if GL had enough of the criticism he gets associated with the BBC he could move to fully to a commercial broadcaster, even Sk* , and be lauded as the best thing ever and no one could complain as his salary isn’t paid from the licence fee.
S*y employ ‘famous’ ex footballers as presenters too, their programmes tend to get smaller audiences , so perhaps they get smaller salaries.
The BBC could employ an unknown,or someone who can barely string a sentence together ,  and pay very little , if they turn out to be good , they get poached by a commercial broadcaster , so what do you want , the BBC just to be the place in which broadcasters learn their trade, or the place where broadcasters who cannot get a job elsewhere l come to retire , 

pphillips

Even Gary Lineker said the licence fee should be voluntary.
How many Match of the Day viewers would switch off if GL no longer presented it?
I think it's hard to justify paying a £1,750,000 salary to one person when it is funded by taxation.

brewerdave

iniltous said:

It’s all subjective of course , personally I think the BBC is terrific value for money, TV, Radio ,Web , for all the right wingers who criticise them for their ‘lefty’ bias, which is in my opinion nonsense, if anything they give right wing politicians and supporters an easy ride, in their attempts to be ‘balanced’
The BBC is in a strange position, why would ‘talent’ work for the BBC for less than they could earn for a commercial broadcaster , if they only employ ‘amateurs’ and pay salaries commensurate with that level of ability, they would get complaints that the ‘quality’ of BBC output is poor, and those that point at ‘trash’ TV that they may produce , if they are obliged to provide something for everyone, you have to accept trash has an audience.
If someone genuinely doesn’t consume BBC products , then I agree , making them pay £13 a month is unfair.
It is the case , the BBC is the worlds most trusted broadcaster 

Don't disagree that some of the Beeb output is good value for money BUT maybe it's past time that it was stripped back to BBC Basic, with a more realistic level of license fee (if subscription based models don't work). I can fully understand those who object to paying £157+ pa for just the odd programme when the vast majority of their TV watching is films /sports/cop series etc on Virgin or Sky. 
 For example ,highlights of day old, footy matches could be shown as is, without extremely well paid pundits ,sat on their backsides in a studio (not just GL but the likes of Shearer who apparently gets ~£500,000 for the odd comment!). BBC Breakfast could just be a news programme rather than the chat shows we currently get every day complete with any number of extremely well paid presenters. No need to send a team out to report from a high street to interview a few shoppers live, or move a team to a stately home for the proposed opening, when they could perfectly well do it via Skype or similar.
If the license fee was brought down ,then there wouldn't be so many complaints about the hours and hours of repeats we get subjected to ,every day on the Beeb either !!.