I'm asking you to back it up and direct it at whomever you were referring to, I'm not saying a personal perception shouldn't be stated
So it's OK for me to state what I find amusing now, thanks. The "or what" was justified.
BBC license fee proposals...
- Thread starter /\ndy
- Start date
So it's OK for me to state what I find amusing now, thanks. The "or what" was justified.
Which posters complaining about the BBC also 'complain about the cultural incursions of immigration' and what is the basis for that claim?
Did I suggest anywhere in that statement that it was a specific poster on this thread. No I did not.
Just to clarify I'm not talking about copyright infringement or content that people don't have the rights to show. I'm just asking where the line is drawn, in the context of TV that can be received over the internet.
'I find it amusing that the very quarters that complain about the cultural incursions of immigration are the same that decry the Beeb...'
So what were you referring to? Are you able to give an example?
Actually from memory the time per case for TVL is tiny, if say a simple speeding case in court is a 3 on a scale of 1-10 for time taken, a TVL case will barely register at 1.
There used to be a yearly set of stats produced by the government about case loads in the various courts, giving each type of offence dealt with a number representing the average time taken vs the number of cases.
A magistrates court could do 100+ TVL cases in a morning or afternoon.
In the same time they might (if the CPS didn't mess up paperwork) may manage something like half a dozen other fairly simple cases, or a dozen very simple ones, but may only manage one more complex one.
I think there is/was a suggestion that the CPS waste more time with not being prepared for cases than the total time taken by the TVL cases (which are dealt with in specially scheduled sessions as they can be dealt with so fast, and the law is so simple in regards to them)..
No, they won't do it because:
1: It's the government that sets the conditions under which the BBC operate.
2: It would no longer be a PSB broadcaster.
3: The cost would be very high - and scale with the number of sets in a property (and probably require you to only use approved recorders) - Sky and VM both charge a multi room fee per additional box (and make a nice bit of extra profit out of it).
What do you want, a video of my interactions with people in this quarter?
I stated an observed perception, you've already agreed there is no problem with doing so, perhaps because to state otherwise is passive aggressive.
I personally think the Beeb as it stands, is something of a bastion of Britishness. Much as France has laws to protect cultural representation, we have the beeb, as mentioned, it's amusing when those who complain that Britishness is diminished by incoming cultures decry the BBC.
No that doesn't mean YOU, if it did I would have said YOU.
Yeah that is fair comment that they can probably wiz through them fairly rapidly, but the fact people are going to jail for it is a bit ridiculous. I was answering a poster questioning the number of prosecutions vs tax evasion prosecutions though and there is no comparison in terms of sheer numbers.
No I was just asking for context, who you were referring to and what you were referring to.
I wouldn't have thought it would apply to me, I'm quite pro immigration and I'm not decrying the BBC, I'm just arguing for a different funding model.
I think the line is any broadcaster who pays a licence fee to transmit, their live footage requires the end user a licence to watch. Some dude sitting at home broadcasting live streams of his own material would not require a licence to watch.
Jay
I'm not sure that works - for example Now TV is an internet broadcaster and they do rebroadcast some commercial content which would require a TV license.
TV licensing web site seems to indicate that live streams on the internet do require licensing but AFAIK internet broadcasting isn't ofcom regulated
so I'm still not clear as to when internet live streams count as TV, when some people have had viewer figures in the hundreds of thousands on services like twitch then I can see this area becoming a lot more blurred in future
personally I see the funding model as distinct to the governance and editorial decisions
the BBC already carries adverts worldwide and already has investments in commercial broadcasters without advertisers compromising its editorial stance - I just don't see why it would be such a crime for them to make a larger portion of the corporation self funded with profits diverted into the PSB side... they already do this with BBC worldwide
Now TV is able to broadcast some commercial rebroadcast because Sky/Now
I'm not sure what Now TV is all about sorry I have never used it. As for Twitch, they are just broadcasting their own material AFAIK, if they broadcast live TV from any broadcaster who has a licence to broadcast, then you need a licence.
Ah OK, thanks that kind of makes sense.
It seems you don't need a license to watch on demand stuff from Now TV
So if Now TV were to make their own live shows you'd not need a license to watch that either as it is only 'internet TV' and not rebroadcasting TV from other mediums such as satellite and terrestrial?
this brings me to BT Sport - they buy up the rights to show football matches that aren't necessarily broadcast by terrestrial or satellite stations... not clear on the need for a license there.
I guess a lot of internet content is on demand but I'd wager that with people getting more used to smart TVs and faster connections there will be a market for internet only channels that live stream...
It seems you don't need a license to watch on demand stuff from Now TV
So if Now TV were to make their own live shows you'd not need a license to watch that either as it is only 'internet TV' and not rebroadcasting TV from other mediums such as satellite and terrestrial?
this brings me to BT Sport - they buy up the rights to show football matches that aren't necessarily broadcast by terrestrial or satellite stations... not clear on the need for a license there.
I guess a lot of internet content is on demand but I'd wager that with people getting more used to smart TVs and faster connections there will be a market for internet only channels that live stream...
There is a lot to be said for Chomsky's opinion on the effect of advertising on editorial control.
https://chomsky.info/consent01/
I appreciate you think that funding and editorial control are discreet but I respectfully disagree, In a world where we already have the choice of ITV/Sky and the other channels I don't see how the public are served by your proposal.
This seems amusing and relevant.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...oy-you-parents-warn-government-20160512108802
People never go to jail for non payment of a TVL.
If you end up in jail it'll be for non payment of a court imposed fine.
Something that can happen if you drop an apple core and get done for littering and refuse to pay the that fine.
The magistrates courts apparently hate sending people to jail for non payment of small fines because they're aware of the cost, and the fact the jails don't tend to have that much space (from my reading it's not uncommon for them to basically run it as "time served" if you've been in a police cell over night).
So they do everything possible, including the 50p a week payment options to ensure that it's possible to pay.
Last time I looked at the prison statistics only about a dozen people spent any time in jail for an offence that started with non payment of the TVL in the space of a year (which suggests that's quite hard to do)..
But surely it is a bit late - if advertising affects their editorial control then we've already gone beyond that point as there is 1.5 billion in revenue generated by the part of the BBC that sells advertising overseas and sells content to commercial broadcasters
Last edited:
Read up on the difference between the nature of the BBC, and BBC:WW.
One if an operation that runs in the UK and cannot legally charge a sub, it can't even have more than a very limited amount of savings, something like 50-100 million which hasn't changed in decades (and is part of the reason they now have to rent new broadcast buildings, they don't have the money to pay to buy the land and build them).
One is a commercial operator that has links to the BBC, pretty much only in so much as the BBC owns it at arms length (operationally they are completely independent), and that it buys a lot of it's content from the BBC (basically someone realised that to get the best value for the TVL the BBC should be able to sell content abroad, but that required safeguards to protect the BBC against undue commercial pressure or risk*.
BBC:WW cannot use the BBC logo, or name on channels they might operate in the UK from memory.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,343
- Location
- The South
Ok, so in your world BBC's tv, radio and online is funded via advertising, which lets be honest is the only model that would work across those; who then pays for PSB (world service, kids content, student/adult learning), r&d/tech side of it? Would you be happy for taxes to increase to cover the £5/600m (very rough figure going off the annual report; probably end up being more) needed to fund it?