BBC license fee proposals...

[PermaBanned]

son't see why it shouldn't be or at least the vast majority of it - why does east enders need to be funded by a license fee when it isn't much different to any other crappy soap produced by commercial rivals... ditto to most BBC one, radio 1 etc.. content

keep the funding for say the world service and whatever public service broadcasting can't be covered by the profits generated by the rest

Channel 4 seems to manage to fulfill PSB requirements without requiring external funding

Because the BBC provides far more and a much more valuable and intrinsic service to our society than just ad funding whatever shows get the most views for the lowest cost.

 

[dowie]

I'm not assuming he wants to watch BBC content, I'm the one who wants to watch BBC content.

well you buy a license then, problem solved

Are they? (did you just assume that?)

yes they are... nope I'm not assuming things when I point out that your earlier assumption of piracy was flawed or when I've stated that the show you cite is available on amazon prime - those are simple facts

 

[dowie]

Because the BBC provides far more and a much more valuable and intrinsic service to our society than just ad funding whatever shows get the most views for the lowest cost.

And that again doesn't answer my point re: the majority of it actually being not much different to commercial content. Why can't you fund Radio 1, Top Gear, EastEnders commercially?

 

[Jambo]

In my opinion there is no justification for the licence fee whatsoever. It should be ad-funded, subscription based or a combination of both. People who want to watch it should pay to watch it. People who don't want to watch it don't need to pay.

Simple and fair.

 

[PermaBanned]

And that again doesn't answer my point re: the majority of it actually being not much different to commercial content. Why can't you fund Radio 1, Top Gear, EastEnders commercially?

Top Gear is one of the most profitable shows for the BBC isn't it? They sell it all over the world. You can't just pick examples which clearly don't matter and use that as a reason to dismantle the entire institution. Because you're ignoring the value of good, local kids TV, of a news source that actually aims to be truly impartial, of the World Service, of full coverage of round the world news and sporting events...

 

[McBain]

I love paying £146 a year and watch absolutely zero BBC content.

 

[james.miller]

well you buy a license then, problem solved

I already have one.

yes they are... nope I'm not assuming things when I point out that your earlier assumption of piracy was flawed or when I've stated that the show you cite is available on amazon prime - those are simple facts

You are assuming i dont already know he downloads everything. Never mind i quoted him telling everybody else to do just that. Never mind him since replying and confirming he does download everything he watches. No let's ignore all of that because it fits your argument better. No, the only person making assumptions in this discussion is you.

 

[jon86]

Apply a little perspective, consider the typical standard of TV worldwide and then tell me with a straight face that things like Planet Earth are not right up there as some of the best.

Planet Earth is, but then so are some of the documentaries on the Discovery Channel... and Discovery seems to get by okay without an archaic TV license.

... Streaming services aren't the answer unless you want to wait for content to be made available ...

People are happy to wait for the next season of House of Cards, Daredevil, Jessica Jones (Netflix), or Bosch and the new not-called-Top-Gear-but-really-Top-Gear show (Amazon Prime). I don't see the problem here.

... that of course pretty much only covers tv - cant listen to radio 1 on netflix.

Live radio is archaic at best. On-demand is the future. Listen to what you want, when you want, how you want (on an internet-connected device). If you have no internet access where you're going, you can always download some podcasts or sync playlists for offline use.

... Why can't you fund Radio 1, Top Gear, EastEnders commercially?

In my opinion there is no justification for the licence fee whatsoever. It should be ad-funded, subscription based or a combination of both. People who want to watch it should pay to watch it. People who don't want to watch it don't need to pay. ...

Indeed.

... you're ignoring the value of good, local kids TV ...

Nothing that cannot be provided for on-demand if there is the demand (pun intended ).

... a news source that actually aims to be truly impartial ...

Haha. Funny joke. BBC News is not impartial. If it's trying pretending to be impartial, it's failing miserably.

 

[VincentHanna]

I love paying £146 a year and watch absolutely zero BBC content.

Unlikely.

A quick search of your name would indicate you watched stuff like Wimbledon.

 

[james.miller]

People are happy to wait for the next season of House of Cards, Daredevil, Jessica Jones (Netflix), or Bosch and the new not-called-Top-Gear-but-really-Top-Gear show (Amazon Prime). I don't see the problem here.

I get that, but watching a new series of a netflix original, for example, is not the same as waiting for already-aired BBC content to appear on netflix which can take months/years. If it were available promptly then that might be one less reason for people to pirate content i guess (and one less reason to justify the fee..), but these content providers do like paying for their exclusives though!

Live radio is archaic at best. On-demand is the future. Listen to what you want, when you want, how you want (on an internet-connected device). If you have no internet access where you're going, you can always download some podcasts or sync playlists for offline use.

I dont disagree. Bar car journeys to work, the rest of my listening is pretty much all podcasts. Those (bbc at least) podcasts are funded by the licence fee though.

 

[jon86]

I get that, but watching a new series of a netflix original, for example, is not the same as waiting for already-aired BBC content to appear on netflix which can take months/years. If it were available promptly then that might be one less reason for people to pirate content i guess (and one less reason to justify the fee..), but these content providers do like paying for their exclusives though!
...

The only shows that I might miss a tiny bit would be Wimbledon coverage and maybe The Great British Bake Off. There is literally nothing else worth watching on the BBC, IMO.

...
I dont disagree. Those (bbc) podcasts are funded by the licence fee though.

Sure. If the content was good, they could sell individual episodes or a season pass, much like iTunes. I used to listen to some Radio 4 when I was in the UK, but I haven't missed it since moving to the USA, so it wouldn't bother me either way.

 

[gothic_hobbit]

So they scrap BBC3 and up the license fee ?

Rip off Britain is alive and well !

 

[dowie]

Top Gear is one of the most profitable shows for the BBC isn't it? They sell it all over the world. You can't just pick examples which clearly don't matter and use that as a reason to dismantle the entire institution. Because you're ignoring the value of good, local kids TV, of a news source that actually aims to be truly impartial, of the World Service, of full coverage of round the world news and sporting events...

I've not ignored any of that nor have I advocated dismantling it I've pointed out that there is no reason why most of it can't be funded commercially and the profits from that used towards public service stuff with additional subsidy if necessary. So again aside from making a couple of straw man arguments that doesn't answer my point re: the majority of it actually being not much different to commercial content. Why can't you fund Radio 1, Top Gear, EastEnders (and most of the content on BBC1 and BBC2 tbh..)etc.. commercially?

In case you're going to make an impartiality argument re: the PSB bit I'll point out that a) Channel 4 exists and b) the BBC already has a commercial arm and sells advertising

 

[dowie]

You are assuming i dont already know he downloads everything. Never mind i quoted him telling everybody else to do just that. Never mind him since replying and confirming he does download everything he watches. No let's ignore all of that because it fits your argument better. No, the only person making assumptions in this discussion is you.

no I've not made any assumptions, I've simply constructed arguments based on the statements actually made, you can go back and re-read my posts again if you think otherwise

you've assumed piracy I've pointed out it doesn't have to involve piracy - I made no assumption whether the other poster was a pirate though, you did and it turns out he is but that isn't relevant to the point I made

ditto to your claims about specific BBC shows

 

[james.miller]

Sure. If the content was good, they could sell individual episodes or a season pass, much like iTunes. I used to listen to some Radio 4 when I was in the UK, but I haven't missed it since moving to the USA, so it wouldn't bother me either way.

I've no problem with that costs would sky rocket though. Example, TV licence is (currently) £12.13 a month. dowie noted that The Night Manager is available on amazon 'for a fee' and i ignored that as it was a nonsense comment. It's true, but not relevant because it's £12.99 for the season. That's already more than a months licence fee, more than than a month's premium netflix even. If we go down this route of paying per item or season, then a few shows here and there, throw in some podcasts and it's very quickly going to stack up, so i dont think it's really an answer (nice cash cow though!).

no I've not made any assumptions, I've simply constructed arguments based on the statements actually made, you can go back and re-read my posts again if you think otherwise

you've assumed piracy I've pointed out it doesn't have to involve piracy - I made no assumption whether the other poster was a pirate though, you did and it turns out he is but that isn't relevant to the point I made

ditto to your claims about specific BBC shows

Oh man. I already knew he downloaded 'everything he watches'. He's stated (not an assumption on my part) that more than once already.

Just stop already, you're arguing when even he isn't.

 

[dowie]

eurgh learn to read. I already knew he downloaded 'everything he watches'. He's stated (not an assumption on my part) that more than once already.

Just stop already, you're arguing when even he isn't.

again, re: 'learn to read' I've not made an assumption whether he did either way... like I said read my posts/arguments properly whether he pirated or not is inconsequential. In the relevant post he'd not stated piracy and you made no reference to any other posts that stated otherwise. I'll deal with and make arguments based on the information actually presented thanks.

 

[dowie]

I've no problem with that costs would sky rocket though. Example, TV licence is (currently) £12.13 a month. dowie noted that The Night Manager is available on amazon 'for a fee' and i ignored that as it was a nonsense comment. It's true, but not relevant because it's £12.99 for the season. That's already more than a months licence fee, more than than a month's premium netflix even. If we go down this route of paying per item or season, then a few shows here and there, throw in some podcasts and it's very quickly going to stack up, so i dont think it's really an answer (nice cash cow though!).

well not really, if someone watches that many BBC shows then the license is worthwhile but if the only BBC shows someone wanted to watch were say the odd show like the night manager or war and peace then splashing out £25 for the pair of them vs £145 for a license is a good call

plenty of other BBC shows are available for no extra cost on prime - like your other example of Sherlock

 

[SPG]

So where do I stand for example of not having a license fee and only use NETFLIX for example.

 

[james.miller]

Dowie:

Spoiler

I knew the score from his comments in the last thread re: the loop hole closure of iPlayer last month. I made no assumptions dowie, you did but sure, keep on deflecting if helps. As for Sherlock, i said if it was a new season it wouldnt be on prime and what do you know? Abominable Bride (released Jan 2016, after season 3) isn't on prime. But sure i could buy it for £12.99 i guess.

As for the rest of it i just cant be bothered, it's boring me. I watch enough content to justify the cost of the fee, easily. I don't like the licence fee model, i dont like how people who (genuinely) dont consume any BBC content still have the pay for it. It needs reform. That's my stance.

I'm done with the argument. Move on.

So where do I stand for example of not having a license fee and only use NETFLIX for example.

unsure! John Whittingdale said "we will close the iplayer loophole, meaning that those who watch BBC programs on-demand will now need a TV licence like everyone else". I dont think its been clarified whether that means any on demand service and any BBC Content or just iplayer and the content available on there?


We'll fine out soon i guess!

 

[Tefal]

Keep it up.



Yes, however the problem rests with proving that you are not using iPlayer, which to me can neither be proved or disproved.

Or they just put a passowrd on it linked to your license....

Want to watch please log in

Username :tv license number

Password