No, don't watch live TV.
Tbh, I just left it as the Virgin Media guy installed it with the cable splitter to the router and tivo box
It has some catch up 'apps' other than iPlayer too but I've not even used them either...
BBC license fee proposals...
- Thread starter /\ndy
- Start date
No, don't watch live TV.
Tbh, I just left it as the Virgin Media guy installed it with the cable splitter to the router and tivo box
It has some catch up 'apps' other than iPlayer too but I've not even used them either...
nice scam, so if I watch sky news I have to pay the BBC... how can people seriously think that's good I don't know...
I company is taking BILLIONS
drop license to £20 a year and sack all the BBC staff, keep BBC news and associated programs - start a new (proper) business model where using AD revenue or subscription services to make money.... If people want the services they will pay...
What scam.
It's the government that has decided (many many years ago) to have the fee and pass some/most of it on.
£20 a year would barely cover the local radio and news services.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
It records things you might like.
Quantity does not equal quality. I'm happy you enjoy Eastenders, but please don't pretend to me it's anything other than lowest common denominator rubbish
Last edited:
House of Cards is a high profile, 13 episode a year flag pole show.
EE is a multiple times a week budget show.
The BBC does do far far better stuff than EE, but no British Broadcaster can afford the 3-5 million pounds an episode that the US companies can easily spend on such shows (some of the pilots have budgets that are bigger than many UK funded films).
We still have stuff that can compete (Wolf Hall was very impressive), but no company here can afford that sort of money, especially for niche programming.
I wouldn't be surprised if EE cost about the same for 100-150 episodes as HOC does for 13.
EE is a multiple times a week budget show.
The BBC does do far far better stuff than EE, but no British Broadcaster can afford the 3-5 million pounds an episode that the US companies can easily spend on such shows (some of the pilots have budgets that are bigger than many UK funded films).
We still have stuff that can compete (Wolf Hall was very impressive), but no company here can afford that sort of money, especially for niche programming.
I wouldn't be surprised if EE cost about the same for 100-150 episodes as HOC does for 13.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,172
I just wish the BBC would make Doctor Who good again.
As long as it's the BBC's flag ship show to peddle it's SJW propaganda then no, it won't be good again. I'd love it if it became the hard sci-fi show it could be
Should the NHS also charge ill people? Make all highways toll roads? All schools go fee-paying?
Public services have some major benefits over private, including the BBC vs. the commercial broadcasters. Making it show ads or charge a subscription would kill it.
I've come around to the idea of just funding it from general taxation to make it less of a target for all the moaners.
The difference is BBC is a luxury that we don't need while the schools, NHS, roads are hardly classed as a luxury. Its wrong to force people to pay a tax on a luxury they don't use, need or want. To me general taxation to pay for the BBC is flat out wrong. The BBC doesn't even provide much of a benefit at lest I see zero benefit in it. BBC are behind on technology and behind on quality programs.
"Public services have some major benefits over private"
Then way is the government turning many of our sectors like schools into private? There are few government run schools left with a goal to have zero public secondary schools by 2020. Still funded by the public just not run by the public sector.
Last edited:
How can you compare an entertainment service with hospitals?
It's a disgrace that peoples money is being forcefully taken by the government so they can run a tv service. It's socialist in the extreme.
Guess we just disagree on the value of having a public broadcaster then.
I suppose it's easy to take it for granted when we live in one of the more open societies in the world, with fairly strong press freedom and little/no government interference.
Contrast with countries that aren't in this position (there are many, Russia and China are two obvious ones) and the benefits of having an unbiased state broadcaster are clear.
Also compare to Western countries with fairly weak public broadcasters, e.g. the USA. The most watched news channel here is the BBC news. There it's FOX News, which a poll found was 'the most ideological channel in America'. The point of this it seems to me is unless you have respected and trustworthy news then people are going to turn en masse to whichever 'news' suits them best ideologically (I know the same thing is true here with commercial news e.g. Sky, and the red tops, but it's got to be worse there in the absence of a BBC-like option).
The public broadcaster in the USA (PBS) runs on 'pledges' (sponsorship basically) which pop up before, after, and during programmes. In 2011 they also said they'd be switching to advertising during programmes (but I'm not sure how widely this was rolled out). Needless to say this was unpopular, but it mirrors the direction some people (e.g. edscdk in the post above) think we should go, and it's not pretty.
/ramble
I suppose it's easy to take it for granted when we live in one of the more open societies in the world, with fairly strong press freedom and little/no government interference.
Contrast with countries that aren't in this position (there are many, Russia and China are two obvious ones) and the benefits of having an unbiased state broadcaster are clear.
Also compare to Western countries with fairly weak public broadcasters, e.g. the USA. The most watched news channel here is the BBC news. There it's FOX News, which a poll found was 'the most ideological channel in America'. The point of this it seems to me is unless you have respected and trustworthy news then people are going to turn en masse to whichever 'news' suits them best ideologically (I know the same thing is true here with commercial news e.g. Sky, and the red tops, but it's got to be worse there in the absence of a BBC-like option).
The public broadcaster in the USA (PBS) runs on 'pledges' (sponsorship basically) which pop up before, after, and during programmes. In 2011 they also said they'd be switching to advertising during programmes (but I'm not sure how widely this was rolled out). Needless to say this was unpopular, but it mirrors the direction some people (e.g. edscdk in the post above) think we should go, and it's not pretty.
/ramble
Moved house this year and have only this week got a satellite box setup, turned it on twice now to be amazed at how awful TV is these days, there's not a single decent show to watch on the freeview services.
This just happens to coincide with a threatening letter from the lovely folks at the TV licence saying an investigation into the property has begun.
Should I pay up? There's no way in hell I'm ever going to use the satellite to watch live TV, it's garbage. I stream netflix, amazon, 4od or whatever to the TV - in the past, I've used iPlayer but I could honestly live happily without.
The fee is a minimal amount of money, it's stubbornness more than anything else because TV is so ****. I paid it at my previous property but again, never watched it.
This just happens to coincide with a threatening letter from the lovely folks at the TV licence saying an investigation into the property has begun.
Should I pay up? There's no way in hell I'm ever going to use the satellite to watch live TV, it's garbage. I stream netflix, amazon, 4od or whatever to the TV - in the past, I've used iPlayer but I could honestly live happily without.
The fee is a minimal amount of money, it's stubbornness more than anything else because TV is so ****. I paid it at my previous property but again, never watched it.
As long as your streaming continues to exclude iPlayer, then you don't need one, so just fill in the form online and they'll most likely leave you be, unless you're Pottsey and then they'll start stalking you
