TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Michael_L wrote: »

I have always been a firm supporter of the Licence Fee and the BBC. £3 per week provides the best television in the World uninterrupted by offers of 'feminine hygiene' products or toilet cleaner. Likewise there are excellent radio programmes for every taste and brilliant content on the website. When we fly anywhere I download tv shows on my iPad.
We watch commercial offerings only after they have been recorded so the adverts can be skipped over.
So we are talking about less than the cost of a pint of beer a week for all this. What I struggle to understand is why Sky customers choose to pay a subscription AND suffer advertising.

The issue (for the Licence and for any discussion in a medium like this) is that for something so relatively simple, its impact has been allowed to grow and grow out of control over its history. A Licence covering one TV channel and a couple of Radio channels is a completely different prospect to one that funds a dozen TV services, 70 Radio stations and one of the UK's biggest websites. At the same time within the scope of its proscription are now dozens of commercial TV channels. The fact that many of those services are funded in full or in part by advertising represents a significant barrier to trade.

This forum medium tends to concentrate on short, sharp dialogues, and very lengthy, detailed posts can both put people off, and appear dogmatic. But at the same time, discussions can drift away from considering all of the issues very, very easily.

So... the UK Licence has a huge number of issues, with virtually every aspect of its operation raising important legal, practical and moral questions as well as questions about the conduct of a public authority in a civil democracy. As such, and although I concede that it has some strengths compared to other options, it's impossible at the moment to give the UK TV Licence a clean bill of health, and we shouldn't be accepting its failings simply because we are keen on Doctor Who or Strictly. Or in other words, all the benefits and disbenefits need to be carefully considered before making a judgement.

The picture from around the World is of a long, slow move away from traditional models of TV licensing (and a fair list of countries that never had one). The latest to abolish its Licence is Denmark.

Michael_L_2

Stephenbw wrote: »

Then there are an awful lot of nations without any pride:D

***Had to remove link as I am new user**Michael L

I would be quite happy to pay a license fee for all the freeview channels directly to the broadcaster rather than via the ads that fund commercial TV.

As for those who claim that they never watch or listen to anything broadcast by the BBC, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would choose to not watch something because it is on the BBC.

I choose the programmes I watch, not the channel.

cogder wrote: »

I NEVER watch, listen or anything to anything the BBC broadcasts, I wish I could just subscribe to the BBC if you want to watch those channels, I think in this day and age we should be able to choose what we have to pay for with regards to the TV, I don't pay for the sky movies for example.

It's not that I choose to not watch anything BECAUSE it's on the BBC, it's because the BBC offers me nothing I wish to watch or listen to.

If it's a "TV Licence" then why doesn't the money goto all the channels instead of an out of date, out of touch TV company that spends money hand over fist on drivel. Maybe if they were supported by ads, then they'd be a bit more conservative with what they spend their money on.

Ah.... rant over :rotfl:

I wonder how you know what the BBC are broadcasting. I suspect that you have fallen victim to tabloid anti-BBC bias.

bris

Michael_L wrote: »

I wonder how you know what the BBC are broadcasting. I suspect that you have fallen victim to tabloid anti-BBC bias.

It's nothing to do with bias, the BBC should now be like the rest and live or die by it's commercial success just like every other channel.


Times have changed TV has grown way beyond the BBC and it's now no more than just a tax on what we watch.


It should be phased out, reduced the fee over the next 5-10 years and allow it to build up commercial advertising partners, it will attract them, it's time to let it live or die on it's own.

Michael_L_2

Cornucopia wrote: »

The issue (for the Licence and for any discussion in a medium like this) is that for something so relatively simple, its impact has been allowed to grow and grow out of control over its history. A Licence covering one TV channel and a couple of Radio channels is a completely different prospect to one that funds a dozen TV services, 70 Radio stations and one of the UK's biggest websites. At the same time within the scope of its proscription are now dozens of commercial TV channels. The fact that many of those services are funded in full or in part by advertising represents a significant barrier to trade.

This forum medium tends to concentrate on short, sharp dialogues, and very lengthy, detailed posts can both put people off, and appear dogmatic. But at the same time, discussions can drift away from considering all of the issues very, very easily.

So... the UK Licence has a huge number of issues, with virtually every aspect of its operation raising important legal, practical and moral questions as well as questions about the conduct of a public authority in a civil democracy. As such, and although I concede that it has some strengths compared to other options, it's impossible at the moment to give the UK TV Licence a clean bill of health, and we shouldn't be accepting its failings simply because we are keen on Doctor Who or Strictly. Or in other words, all the benefits and disbenefits need to be carefully considered before making a judgement.

The picture from around the World is of a long, slow move away from traditional models of TV licensing (and a fair list of countries that never had one). The latest to abolish its Licence is Denmark.

There is very little in the world that is perfect. I would be the first to say membership of the EU was/is full of problems but I feel it was/is by far the better solution. I suspect that the majority of people bemoaning the BBC on here make use of it's services. Of course some folk are happy to have their viewing or listening interrupted by advertising. Many countries offer no alternative to this and I think it will be a long time before other's follow Denmark. Much of the criticism of the BBC and it's funding is politically motivated by the right wing press. How amusing that they scream left wing bias while others complain of right wing bias. I say 'Hands Off' the BBC, one of the country's greatest institutions. It's an absolute bargain.

Michael_L_2

bris wrote: »

It's nothing to do with bias, the BBC should now be like the rest and live or die by it's commercial success just like every other channel.


Times have changed TV has grown way beyond the BBC and it's now no more than just a tax on what we watch.


It should be phased out, reduced the fee over the next 5-10 years and allow it to build up commercial advertising partners, it will attract them, it's time to let it live or die on it's own.

What is wrong with a country having a first class broadcaster paid for by everybody? Millions of people hate advertising and see no place for it in their viewing or listening. The fact that almost everyone pays for it brings the price down to £3 per week. What can you buy for £3? We all pay for libraries. Should we make people pay to borrow books too or place adverts in their pages? I can just imagine watching David Attenborough's latest tv masterpiece being interrupted by a McDonalds commercial. Let's be different to the likes of the USA please.

[Deleted User]

Michael_L wrote: »

What is wrong with a country having a first class broadcaster paid for by everybody?

What's wrong with it is, it means some people are paying for something they are not using.

Michael_L_2

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

What's wrong with it is, it means some people are paying for something they are not using.

What about libraries? Should we close them?

Cornucopia

Michael_L wrote: »

There is very little in the world that is perfect.

Unfortunately, unless you have personally experienced the crimes and misdemeanours of TV Licensing, it's extremely unlikely that you would believe that they were even possible. The casual disregard for the law, the offences committed by its staff, the false prosecutions, the lies and intimidation - all there for (we are led to believe) the greater good. I'm afraid I simply can't accept that any of that is necessary, or that mere broadcasting is a rational justification for it.

I suspect that the majority of people bemoaning the BBC on here make use of it's services.

As long as they are doing that legally, I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd hate for the opposite charge to be made - that people are criticising the BBC without understanding it.

Of course some folk are happy to have their viewing or listening interrupted by advertising.

It's not 1955 any more. There are more than two options to broadcasting, and several different variations of funding and ownership present in the diverse media market of the UK. Of those, several have limitations on advertising, including some that have no ads at all without requiring public funding. If people want that, then the market will provide (and it has).

It's possible that the BBC may acquire full ownership of a group of ad-funded channels. Is it okay for them to do that? How do people who are critical of advertising feel if/when it becomes the BBC that is doing it?

Many countries offer no alternative to this [ads]

Can you give an example of a Western democracy that only has ad-funded or ad-free publicly-funded viewing options?

Much of the criticism of the BBC and it's funding is politically motivated by the right wing press.

That's a common misconception. I do not share the politics of the right-wing press, but I can still be critical of the BBC and the TV Licence. In my case, my social and legal concerns about the latter led to me examining the former more closely than perhaps was wise.

Cornucopia

Michael_L wrote: »

What about libraries? Should we close them?

One of the weaknesses of this medium is that complex arguments often get reduced to over-simplified terms. And that is undoubtedly the case here.

There are probably dozens of viable ways of funding the BBC, and probably hundreds of conceivable ways of achieving quality public service broadcasting without having the limitations and flaws of the BBC and the TV Licence.

It's simply not an all-or-nothing proposition.

EachPenny

Michael_L wrote: »

What about libraries? Should we close them?

Libraries provide more than just an entertainment function. Most also provide a community facility, a channel for the local council to communicate and consult residents, and a presence in the local community when the trend is towards local authorities consolidating their back office functions into remote centres that are not open to the public.

Lending books is now often only a very small part of library activities, and yes, quite often people are paying to borrow them as more and more library services operate on the basis of holding a central stock and members wanting to borrow an item have to pay a 'reservation fee' in order to get that item delivered to their local library.

Local authorities have also responded to budget cuts by severely reducing library services and have done this through closing library branches, reducing opening hours, and operating the libraries with volunteers and/or unstaffed facilities.

The BBC's response to austerity was largely limited to 'closing' BBC Three. Well, they continue to produce the content for BBC Three, they just don't broadcast it OTA. Other BBC services have expanded considerably over the last 8 years.

If the BBC had been subject to the same treatment libraries have been given, then several channels and services should have been completely closed and BBC Two should only be broadcasting 6 days a week, and only after 2pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays .