BBC iPlayer loophole to be closed and also ad blockers to be looked at

Oh dear, i'm well aware a subscription service wouldn't work, unles syou ripped up the charter and placed no restrictions on them.
Their mandate includes stuff that is chimerical uneconomical
So I'm well aware of that.

Your the one who is unaware what the polls say, and assume the majority think like you..
 
kissenger said:
Just because it's not essential doesn't mean it shouldn't be publicly funded. I'd rather the BBC budget be cut in half and then paid for through general taxation rather than the existing model based on licenses and inspections and all that nonsense.
Click to expand...

I just don't think entertainment (when so much exists elsewhere) is in any way something that you have to pay for

Id be willing to bet if you could offer TV minus the BBC and give people 140 quid back youd see so many people take the money the BBC would collapse.
It's a bloated archaic dinosaur that will die at some point. Heaven forbid it becomes a tax and ends up spiralling out of control
 
Last edited:
413x said:
I just don't think entertainment (when so much exists elsewhere) is in any way something that you have to pay for
Click to expand...

Well your ignoring parts of the BBC charter that includes stuff which isn't just entertainment.
And again. Very poor argument seeing as lots of entertainment is funded by tax. Lets get rid of parks, or any sculptures, any publicly funded building should be the cheapest concrete squares rather than architectural. Etc. might as well get rid of protected national parks as thats mainly entertainment.
 
Glaucus said:
Well your ignoring parts of the BBC charter that includes stuff which isn't just entertainment.
And again. Very poor argument seeing as lots of entertainment is funded by tax. Lets get rid of parks, or any sculptures, any publicly funded building should be the cheapest concrete squares rather than architectural. Etc. might as well get rid of protected national parks as thats mainly entertainment.
Click to expand...

If you got rid of parks you would have no parks
If you lost the BBC.. I don't really know what you would lose that you can't get else where?
 
413x said:
If you got rid of parks you would have no parks
If you lost the BBC.. I don't really know what you would loose that you can't get else where?
Click to expand...

BBc is mandated to make stuff that is not economically viable so you would lose them, the two main areas are educational stuff and regional.

Why not scrap parks the only reason more private parks don't exist is government has a monopoly and provide them for free at point of enter.

So private park can only charge if they're massive with expensive rides.
 
Glaucus said:
BBc is mandated to make stuff that is not economically viable so you would lose them, the two main areas are educational stuff and regional.

Why not scrap parks the only reason more private parks don't exist is government has a monopoly and provide them for free at point of enter.

So private park can only charge if they're massive with expensive rides.
Click to expand...

I do get your point.
Id. Probably prefer government to pay for less in general.
As you say do pay for non essential things. But can't pay for everything, and also won't pay for nothing.

It's my view BBC isn't worth it.
Parks are (I like parks)

Where you draw the line is at an individual level. But we can't have a vote for everything.
 
It's absolutely a personal opinion, and I'm no against your stance in general. Just the way people post and say BBC is just like any other channel and is nil entertainment.
Can still be against it, but you do need to realise they aren't a private company doing what ever they want.
 
When adverts stop being intrusive, stop tracking what I'm doing on-line, and stop making facebook so much money, I'll remove my adblocker(s).
 
Glaucus said:
Rofl, you like ignoring stuff dint you, again thats one poll. Most poles seem to be around 60% in favour.
You don't think creating region and educational programs aren't good fir the country?

I never said I think it's good for the country, a lot of people do and that is why it exists and supported by tax.
I've already partly said how I feel.
I'm 100% for scrapping license fee. I'm 50/50 funding from central tax, it all depends what standards BBC is held to and what they produce.

However most of the comments in here, yours including show you and others really are clueless about the BBc in general and that's not a good position to form any choices on.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ use a spell checker.
 
413x said:
I don't really know what you would lose that you can't get else where?
Click to expand...

In which case it's worth reading about the BBC and the corporation as a whole and what the licence fee funds, as they do a lot more than produce programming and content for TV, the radio or the internet, ie - the BBC backs (or has active involvement in) a lot of the the platforms and infrastructure you use to watch your "get else where" content, along with R&D into various broadcasting/internet based technologies.
 
I have no issues with iPlayer becoming a license-fee-payer only service. I do take issue with stopping people from blocking intrusive and privacy-invading ads though. There are many good reasons why people use ad blockers, and it's not just because they want to deprive websites from monetizing their content.
 
The problem I have with this proposed change to the law is:

If making the iPlayer require a TV licence means that having any device (phone, tablet, computer etc) means you MUST have a TV licence then this is wrong.

If making the iPlayer require a TV licence means putting in your unique TV licence (BBC tax) code in to log in and play content from iPlayer then I am fine with this and this should have been the case from the start.

If it is the former, then just scrap the licence and take it out of general taxation.
 
I'd rather they just got a cut of the overall tax pot. I don't agree with it going subscription as it'll mean it's flooded with mindless dross like reality shows and chavvy TV.
 
GSXR Gaz Mc said:
bbc should just start showing ads and let the consumer pay for it all
Click to expand...

Fixed for you!

I remember a long time a go somebody had done a calculation that compared the cost of the TV license with the "Cost" of commercial TV by looking at how much the cost of TV advertising added to the cost of consumer products and concluded that the commercial channels actually cost the consumer around four or five times as much as the BBC.

Of course, scrapping commercial TV would not save anything since products would still end up being advertised somehow, but scrapping the TV License may well end up costing everybody more in the long run as the extra advertising costs filter down through to the prices we all pay in the shop!

The BBC is astonishingly good V for M and public funding for it is a funding model that is actually very hard to beat. All the commercial alternatives will likely result in a poorer service and higher overall costs to the consumer.,
 
Orionaut said:
Fixed for you!

I remember a long time a go somebody had done a calculation that compared the cost of the TV license with the "Cost" of commercial TV by looking at how much the cost of TV advertising added to the cost of consumer products and concluded that the commercial channels actually cost the consumer around four or five times as much as the BBC.

Of course, scrapping commercial TV would not save anything since products would still end up being advertised somehow, but scrapping the TV License may well end up costing everybody more in the long run as the extra advertising costs filter down through to the prices we all pay in the shop!

The BBC is astonishingly good V for M and public funding for it is a funding model that is actually very hard to beat. All the commercial alternatives will likely result in a poorer service and higher overall costs to the consumer.,
Click to expand...

I don't buy that.
Maybe if you buy the products advertised on TV it will cost you more
But scrapping the BBC won't save you this money.
At least you can choose not to buy them

It's only good value for money if you watch the BBC or use its services.
 
The BBC still has a founding principle to "inform, educate and entertain",
this should not be solely available on an ability to pay basis, but simply by being a British citizen - the BBC is culturally important, having an impartial source of news and education is vital.

OK so they screwed part of that by letting Lefie luvvies take over the online news and QT, and SJW's take over Radio 4, but the Education bits are mostly OK.

Everything in that remit should remain affordable or free, and I reckon £12/month is a bit much for someone on the breadline.
I gave it up years ago for cost reasons, and although I could afford it now I still don't want to pay to be spoon fed ethnic propaganda.

If they inserted advertising into entertainment slots and kept the news and education ad-free, then they could subsidise poorer families by reducing the licence fee.

I think London media forgets that most people do not eat out every night and can't afford the cinema or the opera - the TV is all they have.
They are not there to exploit their position but to provide a cultural service.
 
Question (not for me, I don't watch live TV).

It's well known that the TVL can't enter your premise without a warrant, which they can only be granted with special dispensation by the court given reasonable grounds to do so. I have friends who have Sky TV who don't pay for a TV license.

Can the TVL access Sky's accounts and therefore find out who is accessing live TV?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom