BBC license fee proposals...

Kenai said:
" What counts as ‘Live TV’ and when do I need a licence to watch TV?

Live TV means any programme you watch or record at the same time as it’s being shown on TV or live on an online TV service."
Click to expand...

That is kind of circular and again doesn't clarify anything - what counts as TV?
 
Tunney said:
How many of those complaining are spending £50+ a month on Sky?
Click to expand...

I pay £40 for Sky which gives me a phone line with call package, fiber broadband, 350 TV channels & radio stations and a load of on demand services.

BBC at £12.50 a month seems a very poor deal in comparison, especially when I don't watch or listen to any of their programming
 
As if this thread has reached 8 pages.

You either pay for the license if you're a law abiding goody two shoes or you don't.

Nobody can prove you're watching ****, hand that money over if you feel like it makes you a better person than those who chin the system off.
 
dowie said:
As if strictly couldn't be funded commercially... Come off it, just because another broadcaster passed on it doesn't mean it wouldn't be commercially viable.
Click to expand...

In which case why did none of the commercial broadcasters try it before the BBC did?

The clue is in the funding.
The BBC not having to worry about advertisers and shareholders was able to take the risk on it.
At the time it, like TGBBO and Life on Mars was considered something that would only get a small audience, which for the cost of it was not something the commercial broadcasters wanted.

There are dozens (hundreds?) of such programs on the BBC, things that the commercial broadcasters didn't want to risk, or dropped doing anything like it because of the low ratings.

Those were just the 3 most obvious examples of something that the BBC tried in recent years, that the commercial channels didn't want at the time, but are now seen as being "too popular" or "ratings chasing" by the BBC.
 
Cyanide said:
I pay £40 for Sky which gives me a phone line with call package, fiber broadband, 350 TV channels & radio stations and a load of on demand services.

BBC at £12.50 a month seems a very poor deal in comparison, especially when I don't watch or listen to any of their programming
Click to expand...

This is the issue a lot of people have. They are forced to pay the £12.50 in order to be able to get the £40 sky subscription. That £12.50 is for nothing if you don't watch any BBC.
 
inogen said:
If you don't like watching it, don't watch it, but don't moan about paying for it, because that's the deal, it's for everyone.
Click to expand...

Why not? I don't personally watch Sky but the objection from someone with say a Sky subscription who doesn't watch BBC content re: having to buy a TV license is valid.

Conversely would you be happy if paying for sky subscriptions was mandatory in order to watch any 'TV'?
 
Basher said:
The delay is irrelevant if it's the same for everyone. If you're watching it as it's being broadcast, they it's live.
Click to expand...

Aye, IIRC the definition of live for this purpose is fairly wide as it has to allow for the differences in encoding, transmission and decoding delays, which can vary by a number of seconds depending the broadcast method and the hardware used (if we have the same channel on in the Living Room and the Bedroom there is about a 3 second difference, despite both being Cable receivers, one a V+ and one a VHD).
 
Werewolf said:
In which case why did none of the commercial broadcasters try it before the BBC did?

The clue is in the funding.
Click to expand...

Not really, any TV station can come up with an original idea, it doesn't demonstrate anything in itself. Conversely you could cherry pick some show by some commercial channel that is successful and ask why didn't the BBC think of it first? Why did they have to spend money in a bidding war to win the rights to show the voice for example, why didn't they already think of the concept etc...

Likewise Channel 4 doesn't have to worry about shareholders, they take risks on things to yet they don't need subsidising from a license fee, they're a not for profit state broadcaster with a public service remit and they're entirely self funded.
 
Last edited:
What about if I pay the licence fee so I am allowed to receive the BBC transmission, then stream that out (+1min buffer) from my internet connection to my neighbour. Does he have to pay for a licence?

assume there is a law against transmissions lol
 
dowie said:
Why not? I don't personally watch Sky but the objection from someone with say a Sky subscription who doesn't watch BBC content re: having to buy a TV license is valid.

Conversely would you be happy if paying for sky subscriptions was mandatory in order to watch any 'TV'?
Click to expand...

If Sky was non-commercial enterprise. So that everyone was able to watch TV and Radio without commercials and advertising. And the point of everyone paying was so that this could be done to everyone's benefit, then yes, I'd have no problem with it.

A licence isn't about paying for BBC content for yourself, it's about paying for BBC content to be available for everyone.
 
dowie said:
Why not? I don't personally watch Sky but the objection from someone with say a Sky subscription who doesn't watch BBC content re: having to buy a TV license is valid.

Conversely would you be happy if paying for sky subscriptions was mandatory in order to watch any 'TV'?
Click to expand...

Does Sky have any legal obligations to do anything in terms of universal access, content for all, childrens TV, news etc.

The BBC has some very strict requirements on what it has to show.
Even the other PSB's like ITV and C4 have been managing to get their commitments reduced massively over the last few years as it's not commercially viable for them to do things like news, children's TV (without being able to put adverts for Frosties, which are Grrrreat apparently), politics, documentaries etc.

Even the supposedly premium high profile "educational" commercial channels are basically reality TV and clip shows now as it's more popular and cheaper to do than new documentaries (and far faster turnaround as you can put out 20 hours of new "Pawn Stars" or "Gold Rush" a year with ease, whilst a wildlife documentary might take a guy a week to get a 30 second shot and if they don't manage it in that time they don't get another chance for a year).
 
inogen said:
A licence isn't about paying for BBC content for yourself, it's about paying for BBC content to be available for everyone.
Click to expand...

And that is why people have a valid objection to paying for it when they don't want to make use of it.

For people who feel strongly about watching the BBC I'm sure they'll be happy to pay for a subscription or whatever to fund it, demanding that others subsidise simply to have the rights to watch some rival service just isn't right.
 
Last edited:
inogen said:
So by the same argument, you don't pay for the fire service until you want them too?
Click to expand...

That's where the difference between want and need comes in.

I imagine most people would be happy to pay for the fire service in case they need to use them.

Not everyone is happy to pay for the BBC because there's no need for their services and they don't want to use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom