BBC license fee proposals...

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 15:35

inogen said:
??

So by the same argument, you don't pay for the fire service until you want them too?

There is a license fee for the fire service? you need to work on your analogies

inogen · 13 May 2016 at 15:35

Closing said:
Yes because that's a great comparison.

It's not a comparison. It's a logical conclusion of the point of view that an individual should only pay for services when consumed.

inogen · 13 May 2016 at 15:36

dowie said:
There is a license fee for the fire service? you need to work on your analogies

Pretty much. It's called council tax. Explain to me the difference.

Hagar · 13 May 2016 at 15:38

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'?

Sky was not around when the first television was being broadcast and the license model developed.

Sky does not produce ad free broadcasting. Although it does produce some good programming.

Sky does not do public service programming, operate a world service radio, produce anything not commercial to attract advertising.

Sky does not have to be answerable to anyone but it's shareholders.

etc.

The answer is no but then £145pa to the BBC is a lot less than typically £600pa to Murdoch.

Closing · 13 May 2016 at 15:41

inogen said:
It's not a comparison. It's a logical conclusion of the point of view that an individual should only pay for services when consumed.

You call it what you like mate it was rubbish

Cyanide · 13 May 2016 at 15:43

inogen said:
Pretty much. It's called council tax. Explain to me the difference.

Council tax pays for services we all may need at some point such as schools, rubbish collection, roads and street lighting etc. You might not want to pay for them, but at some point you may need them.

The TV licence pays for the BBCs TV, radio & web services which are not needed. A lot of people want them, but they're not needed like the services paid for by council tax.

Terminal_Boy · 13 May 2016 at 15:45

nkata said:
Sky was not around when the first television was being broadcast and the license model developed.

Sky does not produce ad free broadcasting. Although it does produce some good programming.

Sky does not do public service programming, operate a world service radio, produce anything not commercial to attract advertising.

Sky does not have to be answerable to anyone but it's shareholders.

etc.

The answer is no but then £145pa to the BBC is a lot less than typically £600pa to Murdoch.

Rupert doesn't send the goons to your house just because you own a television though, does he?

Sagalout · 13 May 2016 at 15:46

Cyanide said:
So... communism?

No...quality

Sagalout · 13 May 2016 at 15:48

Basher said:
The point is that some people don't like the idea of paying the BBC a fee when they don't watch anything produced by the BBC. For instance, I rarely watch the BBC (mostly Sky channels and BT) but I still have to fork out for a TV Licence.

So you do watch it then?

I rarely go to the doctors, but I don't begrudge paying the same as people that use it all the time.

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 15:49

inogen said:
Pretty much. It's called council tax. Explain to me the difference.

council tax ostensibly goes towards helping to fund your local authority, your local authority provides a range of services from collecting your rubbish to dealing with planning applications, noise complaints etc.. etc.. re: the first service if your neighbours house or flat(especially flat) catches fire you would probably want it to be put out - making fire insurance optional isn't a good idea

on the other hand if someone choses to not watch BBC broadcasts it has little effect on the lives of others

I'm not going to go into much more detail than that as if you can't grasp the difference between your local authority and a TV/radio broadcaster there probably isn't much point

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 15:50

nkata said:
Sky was not around when the first television was being broadcast and the license model developed.

Sky does not produce ad free broadcasting. Although it does produce some good programming.

Sky does not do public service programming, operate a world service radio, produce anything not commercial to attract advertising.

Sky does not have to be answerable to anyone but it's shareholders.

etc.

The answer is no but then £145pa to the BBC is a lot less than typically £600pa to Murdoch.

I don't need to know your objections, they're not really relevant to the point I was making - question was whether the other poster would object that is all.

Hagar · 13 May 2016 at 15:51

I think that people are just going to have to accept that they live in the UK with all its privileges and negativities. This is a first world problem, and live with it.

inogen · 13 May 2016 at 15:51

Cyanide said:
The TV licence pays for the BBCs TV, radio & web services which are not needed. A lot of people want them, but they're not needed like the services paid for by council tax.

No. It doesn't. It pays for the BBCs content to be available, on demand, for everyone.

And Council Tax pays for services which are not essential for everybody.

dowie said:
I'm not going to go into much more detail than that as if you can't grasp the difference between your local authority and a TV/radio broadcaster there probably isn't much point

Of course they're different. They're different things. But you apparently cannot grasp how they are similar?

inogen · 13 May 2016 at 15:53

dowie said:
the first service if your neighbours house or flat(especially flat) catches fire you would probably want it to be put out - making fire insurance optional isn't a good idea

on the other hand if someone choses to not watch BBC broadcasts it has little effect on the lives of others

It's equally valid therefore to say making non-commercial media optional isn't a good idea.

I think society in general would suffer greatly if all mainstream media was commercial. I think it would have untold effects on the lives on everyone. Therefore by proxy, even those that choose not to consume the BBCs content.

RaohNS · 13 May 2016 at 16:22

I would rather put the money towards a cinema trip once a month personally. Unfortunately my other half is "scared" that she will be doing something wrong. Note: We had TV on over Xmas to watch Uncle Buck, we turned it off after 15mins and put the DVD in...

I don't think its been on since. Only thing that goes on occasionally is a DVD/BR or the Xbox. The £145 is disgraceful imo. I never use the BBC due to their abhorrent bias and shady modus operandi that we should all be elucidated to

Zatoichi.uK · 13 May 2016 at 16:36

My misses was scared too for a time. We're now so used to streamed content like Netflix etc. now though that she can't stand ads and the general mind numbing content on offer through TV in general. I win.

Hagar · 13 May 2016 at 16:44

For all those who don't watch the BBC, 'The Night Manager' was rather good recently. The Hollow Crown War of the Roses part 1 was good but I preferred the Henry 4 / 5 plays. BBC Four's output is worth the fee as far as i am concerned with Marcella and consistently good scandi noir and other plays. I could go on with radio etc, but I won't

Watching overrated Hollywood films in a cinema once a month does not come close IMO.

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 17:00

nkata said:
For all those who don't watch the BBC, 'The Night Manager' was rather good recently. The Hollow Crown War of the Roses part 1 was good but I preferred the Henry 4 / 5 plays. BBC Four's output is worth the fee as far as i am concerned with Marcella and consistently good scandi noir and other plays. I could go on with radio etc, but I won't

Radio doesn't require a license so irrelevant.

As for X program is good - you could say the same about good shows on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV etc..

I don't think anyone is arguing that the BBC doesn't have any good content, just that some people don't particularly want to watch the BBC and don't think it is fair to have to pay for it if they wanted to watch other TV such as channel 4 or perhaps have a sky subscription etc...

inogen · 13 May 2016 at 17:15

dowie said:
Radio doesn't require a license so irrelevant.

Yeah BBC radio is paid for by the fairies and the unicorns.

Arthur Hucksake · 13 May 2016 at 17:34

In a digital age, why can't we just blacklist all BBC services and just use the others?

That is the real solution.

C4, Channel 5 etc are missing out on ad revenue because of this.

BBC = Bring Back Communism