Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion

TNG

Schwade wrote: »

Thanks.

The only reason why commerical televisions produces reality shows is because consumer wants it. That's market forces - which ironically means the "quality" programmes are not a great hit with anyone.

ok, but would they make so many if it was expensive to make? I think on balance, not. So the consumer wants it and its cheap. Both are important IMO

Schwade wrote: »

If the lack of public funding has such a major slide in quality, you should see this in the 100% commerically driven uk newspapers. But, in reality, there is a range of "perceived quality" of various newspaper - why? because at the end of the day, you have various consumers driving what they want.

As I said, it is only my opinion of what will happen. I hadn't considered any relevance to the UK newspaper market as they have always been 100% commercially driven (even though it is all media :rolleyes: ), but shall do so.

i base my opinion on other previously public institutions that have become private (gas water rail etc). A rapid decline in quality of service in the chase to keep the shareholders happy in all cases

TNG

BTW - defiant. Once more with feeling.....

Do you have this view on ALL public services that you are forced to pay for even if you don't use them. Yes or no will do

Defiant_3

TNG wrote: »

Again, you seem to have read something in to my statement that I didn't type. I didn't say everyone except the BBC, I included the BBC. After all they do reality shows and soaps - not that I watch much of either (on any channel).

That is the last response I will give you defiant. You are incapable of reasoned debate and are evasive, insulting and do not listen. You are quite welcome to comment on my debate with Schwade, as that is intersting. i look forward to reading your comments, they make me laugh

I asked you a reasonable question in a polite manner and you've failed to answer it. Was the statement about "Lowest Common Denominator” programming an opinion or a fact

Schwade

My responses in bold

TNG wrote: »

ok, but would they make so many if it was expensive to make? I think on balance, not. So the consumer wants it and its cheap. Both are important IMO

True and how's why you see various newspaper aiming at different consumer markets depending their appetite for "quality" and "price".

As I said, it is only my opinion of what will happen. I hadn't considered any relevance to the UK newspaper market as they have always been 100% commercially driven (even though it is all media :rolleyes: ), but shall do so.

i base my opinion on other previously public institutions that have become private (gas water rail etc). A rapid decline in quality of service in the chase to keep the shareholders happy in all cases

I agree that gas, water, rail has been really bad. But I think the problem with these are (especially gas, water, etc), the problems in move from one. It is not liquid to move around so much. TV channels is very liquid - you just switch channels.

As for rail, I think the problem this is there is no competition. You privatise the south west line, where is the competition? Buses are bad. Even if people have good ideas of alternative transport, it needs to be approved by the government...

TNG

Defiant wrote: »

I asked you a reasonable question in a polite manner and you've failed to answer it. Was the statement about "Lowest Common Denominator” programming an opinion or a fact

sorry but this is getting really tiresome.

r-e-a-d t-h-e p-o-s-t

Me wrote:

As soon as you make the BBC completely generate its own revenue, you will see the slide increase to even more Lowest Common Denominator TV (cheap, viewer attracting reality shows and soaps) and a lesser reliability on producing quality (i.e. comparatively expensive) programmes in order to keep the share price up and keep the advertisers happy. It is happening already, but my opinion is that it would increase exponentially were we to lose a publibcly funded broadcaster

that IS the last - care to answer my question?

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

Yes he's kept it on topic too hasn't he magyar :rolleyes:

Where have I taken it off topic? This is a debate on whether the TV licence fee is 'worth it'. I contest that it is worth it because I'm happy with what I get for my money. You don't like that because you say you shouldn't have to pay for it if you don't want to. I pointed out that you pay for ITV via increased prices. You have yet to disprove that.

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

Where have I taken it off topic? This is a debate on whether the TV licence fee is 'worth it'. I contest that it is worth it because I'm happy with what I get for my money.

100% correct this is what the debate is about and as you can see from the poll (not just on this forum either) the majority don't want it. Your above answer yet again is about you because you are happy with what you get. have you taken the time to wonder what others get who don't watch or listen to it get?

If the BBC is so good why are you and your two mates so against paying for it via subscription ?

magyar wrote: »

You don't like that because you say you shouldn't have to pay for it if you don't want to. I pointed out that you pay for ITV via increased prices. You have yet to disprove that.

I answered this question and explained how advertising worked. I also explained that you get wholesale cheaper when you sell more which in turn gets you more customers. This all in all means you don't pay for ITV and you have ingored this because it doesn't fit in with your defence of the BBC TV Licence. To date your defense has consisted of "I don't like adverts" :rolleyes:. You have repeated yourself throughout this thread like a child in the backseat of a car shouting "are we their yet"

TNG

Schwade wrote: »

I agree that gas, water, rail has been really bad. But I think the problem with these are (especially gas, water, etc), the problems in move from one. It is not liquid to move around so much. TV channels is very liquid - you just switch channels.

As for rail, I think the problem this is there is no competition. You privatise the south west line, where is the competition? Buses are bad. Even if people have good ideas of alternative transport, it needs to be approved by the government...[/B]

As I say, it is my fear for what will happen and, as such, I am quite happy for licence fee to remain. The BBC does produce a lot of stuff I will never watch. It has to try to be all things to all people, which it can never be. But while it can still turn out something innovative and entertaining like Life on Mars once in a while, I'm happy with the way things are

Defiant_3

TNG wrote: »

sorry but this is getting really tiresome.

r-e-a-d t-h-e p-o-s-t



that IS the last - care to answer my question?

No you didn't say that bit was your opinion you went on to say


"but my opinion is that it would increase exponentially were we to lose a publibcly funded broadcaster"

I asked you about the ""Lowest Common Denominator” " statement which was before that!. Remember this is here in black and white for people to read

Defiant_3

TNG wrote: »

I'm happy with the way things are

What do you think of those people who don't want it, you know the majority ?