TV licensing rant
- Thread starter OCdude
- Start date
I hardly see the licence fee as good value for money - it's £150 now. I go by the rule of £1 to 1 hour of use, and the BBC do not make enough good shows for me to hit that ratio. As Digital TV tuners can lock out channels, it would seem the perfect time to switch to a voluntary licence system - pay for only the channels you want, just like cable TV, which would encourage better content. iPlayer could run like Sky's service (you get a code to use if you have Sky TV).
Unless the BBC is unable to break even without legal bullying of the general public, it would be a better scheme for everyone IMO.
Unless the BBC is unable to break even without legal bullying of the general public, it would be a better scheme for everyone IMO.
s0me people say its worth it for topgear and drwho...
lol get rid of your aerial and just buy the box sets its cheaper
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3,017
- Location
- Midlands
We moved into our new house today. Within the first hour of us being there, a TV license man knocked on the door.
The bloody cheek of it enraged me, so i shut the door on him.
The bloody cheek of it enraged me, so i shut the door on him.
Of course it's worth it!
If you've only lived in UK then you'll have no idea how amazing the BBC truly are. Their news broadcasting and coverage alone is worth every single penny. No where else can you find world coverage from a lower biased source. They don't have political funding or brand sponsorship and hence aren't influenced to report with that bias. They are single handedly regarded WORLDWIDE as a fantastic source for news coverage.
The quality of TV shows are exceptional, of course you're bound to get a few lemmings but what can you expect. The comedy they deliver on every media source is second to none. The new music is incredible and is broadcasting in practically every range/genre you can imagine, all advert free. Podcasts and online material is again of exceptional quality.
If you've only lived in UK then you'll have no idea how amazing the BBC truly are. Their news broadcasting and coverage alone is worth every single penny. No where else can you find world coverage from a lower biased source. They don't have political funding or brand sponsorship and hence aren't influenced to report with that bias. They are single handedly regarded WORLDWIDE as a fantastic source for news coverage.
The quality of TV shows are exceptional, of course you're bound to get a few lemmings but what can you expect. The comedy they deliver on every media source is second to none. The new music is incredible and is broadcasting in practically every range/genre you can imagine, all advert free. Podcasts and online material is again of exceptional quality.
Last edited:
Are you ****ing kidding? Non-biased? High quality?
How about this? - the opening line repeats the outright lie that the big content industry have been trying to convince people of for years, that downloading movies is illegal, against the law. This is completely untrue, it is a civil issue, not a criminal offence, there has never been anyone sent to jail for it, no one has even been successfully sued in this country.
This kind of "journalism" is what we are being forced to pay for in order to watch our TVs? Taking a report from a clearly biased body and treating it as fact.
Quality, unbiased new programme, my hairy arse!
How about this? - the opening line repeats the outright lie that the big content industry have been trying to convince people of for years, that downloading movies is illegal, against the law. This is completely untrue, it is a civil issue, not a criminal offence, there has never been anyone sent to jail for it, no one has even been successfully sued in this country.
This kind of "journalism" is what we are being forced to pay for in order to watch our TVs? Taking a report from a clearly biased body and treating it as fact.
Quality, unbiased new programme, my hairy arse!
Civil law is still law.
It's not hip to point that out.
I love how the industry always quotes figures that equate to 1 download=1 lost sale. Many people have no intention of EVER going to the cinema or buying any DVD/Blu-Ray copy so very often that download=nothing lost and the potential for said person to possibly, just maybe, buy something in the future having been exposed to it previously.
Then there are those that have no intention ever to buy anything and will keep downloading again and again. Those are the people you need to encourage to buy.
Then there are those that have no intention ever to buy anything and will keep downloading again and again. Those are the people you need to encourage to buy.
Not having a dig at you, but your posts illustrate the problem I have with telling TVL to bugger off and leave me alone. They just don't give over, presumably with the same ideas as you expressed below.
I don't pay for a TV license. For several reasons - I don't like the crap programs, the endless opinion and the lacks of facts in most news programs, lowest common denominator cheap telly dancing with the stars who's got talent on ice big brother... you get the picture. The license is more than I'm willing to pay given my money situation, I have better things to do than watch tv (ok sometimes I sit in front of the computer instead, but I get to choose what to see and read and when).
I watch the occasional dvd rental.
I have not watched any television programming for over a year. The only time I see any tv programs is if I'm at somebody else's house. I don't have people over to sit and watch tv and if that's all they're interested in, then I'll not be inviting them again lol
Some of us don't 'switch it on every now and then'. I know it sounds different, but life without the goggle box constantly blaring away in the corner is good. And like anything that you've become accustomed to you miss it to start with, but I can honestly say I'm not really bothered about it now. I will add the caveat that the only time it does bother me is when TV licensing send another of their annoyingly threatening letters, which I have repeatedly rebuffed. Perfunctory, jumped up busy-bodies
I don't pay for a TV license. For several reasons - I don't like the crap programs, the endless opinion and the lacks of facts in most news programs, lowest common denominator cheap telly dancing with the stars who's got talent on ice big brother... you get the picture. The license is more than I'm willing to pay given my money situation, I have better things to do than watch tv (ok sometimes I sit in front of the computer instead, but I get to choose what to see and read and when).
I watch the occasional dvd rental.
I have not watched any television programming for over a year. The only time I see any tv programs is if I'm at somebody else's house. I don't have people over to sit and watch tv and if that's all they're interested in, then I'll not be inviting them again lol
Some of us don't 'switch it on every now and then'. I know it sounds different, but life without the goggle box constantly blaring away in the corner is good. And like anything that you've become accustomed to you miss it to start with, but I can honestly say I'm not really bothered about it now. I will add the caveat that the only time it does bother me is when TV licensing send another of their annoyingly threatening letters, which I have repeatedly rebuffed. Perfunctory, jumped up busy-bodies
Did you actually read the article you're posting? The opening lines purely say that there are figures showing a 30% rise in illegal downloads.
I don't see how you can object to that, surely it's a fact based on the statistics they have?
Not having a dig at you, but your posts illustrate the problem I have with telling TVL to bugger off and leave me alone. They just don't give over, presumably with the same ideas as you expressed below.
I don't pay for a TV license. For several reasons - I don't like the crap programs, the endless opinion and the lacks of facts in most news programs, lowest common denominator cheap telly dancing with the stars who's got talent on ice big brother... you get the picture. The license is more than I'm willing to pay given my money situation, I have better things to do than watch tv (ok sometimes I sit in front of the computer instead, but I get to choose what to see and read and when).
I watch the occasional dvd rental.
I have not watched any television programming for over a year. The only time I see any tv programs is if I'm at somebody else's house. I don't have people over to sit and watch tv and if that's all they're interested in, then I'll not be inviting them again lol
Some of us don't 'switch it on every now and then'. I know it sounds different, but life without the goggle box constantly blaring away in the corner is good. And like anything that you've become accustomed to you miss it to start with, but I can honestly say I'm not really bothered about it now. I will add the caveat that the only time it does bother me is when TV licensing send another of their annoyingly threatening letters, which I have repeatedly rebuffed. Perfunctory, jumped up busy-bodies
But... You don't watch Top Gear!?
Stealing *is* stealing, copyright infringement isn't. I know you feel the need to provoke an emotional response to copyright infringement because of how it makes you feel sad and emotional, but forcibly insisting that it's "theft" to people just makes you look like a fool. There's a very obvious reason as to why "theft" and "copyright infringement" terminologies exist, it's to describe different things.
The problem is that you're relying on their statistics to be honest and not inflated in every possible way they can think of without calling it "out right lies".
However the BBC article is only reporting the facts they are given, which is their job. I'm 100% sure the statistics will be "tactfully" sorted to best fit the agenda of the company providing them, but that's not what the article is, they're simply conveying the facts they were given.
I would say that reporting on it in the way they did implies a form of bias, as they should really know these statistics will be made up to fit with what the company wants to portray.
Reporting it without question is, in my opinion, one of the problems here. Especially the way they were seriously saying that:
"The film industry says online piracy of film and TV shows costs around £500m a year with illegal downloading responsible for a third of that figure. They claim that puts thousands of jobs at risk."
It is a complete and utter load of nonsense. It's also implying that the "Film Industry" is somehow entitled to make at least a certain amount of money, I don't believe it's putting thousands of jobs at risk at all, they're non-sales basically, the industry is constantly reporting record earnings as well, it's just guilt mongering biased nonsense.