TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
The BBC do produce mostly trash

I watch channel 4 catchup for f1 and that's it netflix has much better content and is half the price
I still fear BBC will go to general tax otherwise it will die. So I hope enough other people keep paying for it that it doesn't need to happen !
 
mrbell1984 said:
They used to say if you own a TV (Doesn't matter if you watch live TV or not) you still need a license. Why did they even stop this model is beyond me. They would have made more money if they left it that way.
Click to expand...

Maybe because its not actually legal, they are effectively charging someone for the ownership of a product they have no rights to.
 
At least the BBC produces some decent content. And you have no ads.

In ROI we have similar licence fee, but the national broadcaster (RTE) just buy in 95% of the content from America or the UK. What they do produce is trash. It's full of ads like a regular channel. And the top presenters are on close to same wages as counterparts in the BBC!, it's borderline corrupt.
 
jaws104 said:
At least the BBC produces some decent content. And you have no ads.

In ROI we have similar licence fee, but the national broadcaster (RTE) just buy in 95% of the content from America or the UK. What they do produce is trash. It's full of ads like a regular channel. And the top presenters are on close to same wages as counterparts in the BBC!, it's borderline corrupt.
Click to expand...

When I was in Ireland all the local pubs all had BBC on the TV, especially during the day time. Or other UK based channels.
 
It's comical listening to people justifying their non payment of the licence fee and general hatred of the BBC, based mainly on the fact they don't watch live TV but watch Netflix, Amazon & Catch Up TV instead. The BBC iPlayer service has pushed the boundary for "On Demand" services for well over a decade. The likes of Sky would have been quite happy to continue their pay-as-you-view model via the Sky Store if the BBC hadn't established that a streaming service should be a staple of any network content. It was 5 years after iPlayer that Netflix launched in a proven market. Amazon Video was quite some time later.

The BBC has driven the On-Demand evolution right from the start, and they have been able to do so because the investment for them did not rely on commercial approval. That's the point of the BBC. It's a national broadcaster and it exists to provide a service to the nation free from commercial or political influence. Quite simply, if Sky wanted to charge an extra £10 per month for a Box Set service back in 2007 where the content was limited and the resolution/bandwidth structure in it's infancy, then people would not have bought it and it would be deemed not to be commercially viable.

The BBC website & news service is from the same mould. World class, impartial and it is the yard stick for it's rivals. Sky despise the BBC as they have to constantly evolve to keep up.

How many TV shows on Sky expose shady companies who shamelessly exploit the public? Sky couldn't have a consumer affairs series like "Watchdog" because one phone call from an advertising associate would be all it would take to bury the story.

Have you watched any Sport on Sky recently? The half time talk amongst the pundits, discussing the odds on the outcome of the match? It's product placement on the next level and the BBC are rightly immune to it.

The BBC is a British cultural essential just like a University or a Museum, a library, a local swimming pool. It is entirely irrelevant whether you use it or agree with it's existence. These things should be cherished.

Go to the USA if you want a taste of what capitalism and market forces will do to your TV.
 
String said:
“The BBC has driven the On-Demand evolution right from the start, and they have been able to do so because the investment for them did not rely on commercial approval.”
Click to expand...
BBC steaming has been lagging behind for years not pushing the boundary and even now using Iplayer is like using a system from 8+ years ago. BBC has in no way driven on-demand in recent years what they have been doing is holding back and pushing out outdated systems with outdated broadcast quality. The main players are pushing forwards with Atoms sound, 4k, HDR, interactivity while BBC content is still 98% in the dark ages last time I witnessed any of it.

BBC of old was a British cultural essential but BBC of today is an outdated system with little relevance. What is comical are people like you who still support the BBC.

EDIT: Also none of what you said is true about BBC pushing streaming. Netflix streaming was created after “discovering YouTube and witnessing how popular streaming services were despite the lack of high-definition content, the concept of using a hardware device was scrapped and replaced with a streaming concept instead” BBC had nothing to do with it.

"so because the investment for them did not rely on commercial approval"
Given that BBC is many years behind doesn't that suggest that the system they are using it not working and holding us back? Its hardly an advantage. If relaying on commercial approval means stagnating and playing catchup then it is not a good point.


EDIT2: Just checked dates
“It was 5 years after iPlayer that Netflix launched in a proven market. Amazon Video was quite some time later.”
That is not true. Iplayer came out in 25 December 2007 at which point Netflix had been streaming for almost 1 year.



LiE said:
Without a TV license you can watch catch up, Netflix, Prime, NowTV. The only thing you cannot watch is iPlayer or live TV.

From the website:
Click to expand...
It’s not that simple as depending on what you are watching on Prime you might need a TV license. Most people can watch Prime without a licence but some of the channels do require one. You only need a licence with prime if you watch those live channels. I just wanted to make it clear as a lot of people have missed that Prime now steam live channels.
 
Last edited:
@Pottsey I'm not ignoring your post, some of which I do not agree with. However, I'd prefer to respond later as I've been responding quite a lot in this thread recently and it isn't all about me and what I think.

I'm happy for other opinions to be aired. :)
 
Pottsey said:
The main players are pushing forwards with Atoms sound, 4k, HDR, interactivity while BBC content is still 98% in the dark ages last time I witnessed any of it.
Click to expand...
The real value of the BBC is in technical development rather than product releases. Vast amounts of the technology we use in TV was defined or pioneered by them. This goes back to radio and analogue TV as well as digital and connected TV. Current BBC R&D has pushed loads of boundaries: 4k streaming (generally used for sporting special events and such, largely down to bandwidth across the board, including user homes). HDR (as their own formula HLG which arguably does a better job, it remains to be seen if one algorithm wins out or not). This is in the context of the UK TV industry, which is obviously their main environment. Technology that the BBC have introduced is used by all broadcasters, content providers and media services.

Someone has to develop this stuff in order for it to be adopted more broadly, and they have a history of setting standards for the industry.

In terms of content I think the BBC are one part of the bigger picture, but we shouldn't underestimate the wider value they bring. That said, my opinion on the license fee distribution is fairly uncertain.
 
LuckyBenski said:
The real value of the BBC is in technical development rather than product releases. Vast amounts of the technology we use in TV was defined or pioneered by them. This goes back to radio and analogue TV as well as digital and connected TV. Current BBC R&D has pushed loads of boundaries: 4k streaming (generally used for sporting special events and such, largely down to bandwidth across the board, including user homes). HDR (as their own formula HLG which arguably does a better job, it remains to be seen if one algorithm wins out or not). This is in the context of the UK TV industry, which is obviously their main environment. Technology that the BBC have introduced is used by all broadcasters, content providers and media services.

Someone has to develop this stuff in order for it to be adopted more broadly, and they have a history of setting standards for the industry.

In terms of content I think the BBC are one part of the bigger picture, but we shouldn't underestimate the wider value they bring. That said, my opinion on the license fee distribution is fairly uncertain.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia must be wrong then. No mention of BBC having much to do with 4k or indeed HDR.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
 
robj20 said:
Wikipedia must be wrong then. No mention of BBC having much to do with 4k or indeed HDR.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Click to expand...

Just have a look through the BBC R&D website/blog (https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/); lots of info and cool projects. Worth reading their project on their 8K development with NHK back at the 2012 Olympics - they offered tickets to viewings and it was pretty impressive.
Their project on IP studio workflow is also impressive considering they've managed to push to create new standards and technology which the BBC are rolling out to the new Cardiff studios (one of the first to do this i believe).
 
robj20 said:
Wikipedia must be wrong then. No mention of BBC having much to do with 4k or indeed HDR.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Click to expand...
Don't be puerile, you looked up an image standard when we are discussing streaming video in the UK market.

And they're near the end of the Broadcasting section on the page you linked ;)

Edit: Wait, Wikipedia is constantly wrong!
 
LuckyBenski said:
“Someone has to develop this stuff in order for it to be adopted more broadly, and they have a history of setting standards for the industry.”
Click to expand...
In the distance past but now they are a minor player. Just look at Prime and Netflix which all have superior technology and broadcast out at much higher quality then what BBC do. BBC used to set high standards and lead the industry but now they are a minor player. We could remove BBC and development wouldn’t be hurt.

I don’t see how the real value of BBC is the technical development when BBC own broadcasting is so low quality. Not only is broadcast quality low but in terms of content BBC has plummeted as well. When you look at what you can get on Prime or Netflix then BBC just pales in comparison.
 
String said:
It's comical listening to people justifying their non payment of the licence fee and general hatred of the BBC, based mainly on the fact they don't watch live TV but watch Netflix, Amazon & Catch Up TV instead. . . .
Click to expand...
I suspect that you are being overly generous to people who avoid paying the TV Licence fee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom