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

Jvic28

magyar wrote: »

This is the funniest thread I've participated in for ages.

You can't comment about anything against the BBC without becoming an unpaid employee of them.

Look, ronben and Defiant - you need to get one thing. I like the BBC the way it is. I don't care that you don't. Not in the slightest! Not one teensy-weensy little bit.

You say you're paying for me to watch BBC. You are. I can't deny that. If you don't watch BBC then you're effectively subsidising me. Thanks.

I don't care that you think you're in the majority (based upon what, a poll on a website?). If you can persuade the powers that be to remove the licence fee then you go for it! If it ever comes to a vote, you'll vote one way and I'll vote the other and we'll see who wins.

I think the pro-licence camp would definately lose if it came to a vote.

I also think you're comment about BBC vs ITV viewers hilarious. Are these views based on any particular programmes or do you think that Easternders has more intellectual content than say Corrie for example. :rotfl: I am joking by the way, a little facetious I know, but think the argument is a little childish.

I agree with the subscription idea. If we want to pay to subsidise these channels then that should be our choice. At the end of the day, if the quality of programming is there then people will pay. Forcing people to pay can only enable the BBC to become complacent, if consumers had choice then they would have to look at their programming and compete in the market like everyone else. Surely viewers could only benefit from this.

:A

magyar

Jvic28 wrote: »

I also think you're comment about BBC vs ITV viewers hilarious. Are these views based on any particular programmes or do you think that Easternders has more intellectual content than say Corrie for example. :rotfl: I am joking by the way, a little facetious I know, but think the argument is a little childish.

Well it was mainly a joke, I should point out. Whilst there is truth to the last bit about ITV viewership being considered an area differentiator, I don't in all honesty think that the BBC is a bastion of intellectual splendour. Cash In The Attic isn't exactly my idea of a cultural pinnacle.

It was more a jibe at the way these idiots are constantly telling anyone who supports the BBC that they are employees of them, which is just tiresome.

magyar

Defiant, have you ever lived in the USA and watched the quality of TV you get there?

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

Defiant, have you ever lived in the USA and watched the quality of TV you get there?

Yes I love US TV,

Lost
Prison Break
Stargate Atlantis
NCIS
CSI
Battlestar Galactica
House
Jericho etc

Anyway I'm surprised it took you this long to get onto the US perhaps you should pass this onto a colleague who's had experience at defending the un-defendable. What are you going to talk about next fish & chips :rolleyes:

magyar

That wasn't my question, Defiant. I asked you if you have lived in the USA and watched TV there.

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

American TV is the best in the world in my opinion (note I say opinion Mr BBC)

I noted. But you're wrong, it's not. America produces some marvellous programmes without a doubt, but the overall experience of watching American TV is dire.

Thank God for the BBC, who at least manage to produce excellent programming without having to resort to interrupting everything with an advert break.

Plus, I think that the BBC has a good influence on the rest of broadcasting in the UK, and keeps standards up.

I would say thanks for helping pay for it, but you don't.

magyar

But I'm quite happy with the BBC, Defiant, it's you who seems to get all aerated about it.

Chill out a bit!

There's a good film on BBC2 tonight.

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

I had a good reason which you failed to successfully answer, which was that if you removed the licence fee, you're left with advertising-funded television which we equally had to pay for.

You didn't comment on my post #243 where I suggested how this might work in theory?

To be honest, your concept that we all equally had to paid if it is advertising-funded is such a weird concept to understand - in effect you are saying even with advertising-funded TV, we don't have a choice, which just goes against the whole idea of MSE and how consumer markets work.

magyar

Schwade wrote: »

To be honest, your concept that we all equally had to paid if it is advertising-funded is such a weird concept to understand - in effect you are saying even with advertising-funded TV, we don't have a choice, which just goes against the whole idea of MSE and how consumer markets work.

No, that's not the same thing. Consumer markets work on a group-wide basis. You can't say what one person will do, but you can predict how a group will behave. An advert doesn't target me specifically, it targets everyone.

Likewise, on our own, you or I cannot influence how a large corporation behaves, but the unity of 100,000 MSE'ers can. To this extent, Martin Lewis personally wields a huge level of influence since a recommendation in his weekly email would have an incredible effect on people.

I don't say that we pay equally; clearly some will pay more than others (and I would concede that it's fairer since in general it will be in proportion to income, for the majority of people anyway). However I don't accept that we don't all to some degree pay towards advertising.

I agree it's a hard concept to understand, but you can put it quite simply - someone has to pay for advertising-led TV. You can certainly argue that advertising gives certain companies a larger slice of the pie and thus they can negotiate better deals, but all this is doing is squeezing profit margins - but all thus has to ultimately feed down the chain and sit with someone. And the consumer ultimately sits at the bottom of the chain.

exprog

Congratulations to Sigur for a glimpse of honesty. It's all about our self-appointed betters sponging off everyone else to fund their extremist propaganda. All for our own good, natch.