So only freeview, Sky and virgin are 'conventional'?
What about BT sport?
How are you coming up with the distinction between 'conventional TV' and other stuff?
BBC license fee proposals...
- Thread starter /\ndy
- Start date
So only freeview, Sky and virgin are 'conventional'?
What about BT sport?
How are you coming up with the distinction between 'conventional TV' and other stuff?
Of course bt sport and freesat are covered. Didn't realise you needed every TV version listing.
How are you finding this so hard.
It's quote clearly stated in the law and TV licensing act. That's how I'm coming up with it.
It's not hard to understand.
How are you finding this so hard.
It's quote clearly stated in the law and TV licensing act. That's how I'm coming up with it.
It's not hard to understand.
Yet I've not said the BBC should become commercial I've said that the majorty of it could be funded commercially and the funds from that used to subsidise the PSB requirements with additional subsidy from govt for certain aspects like local radio, BBC monitoring, world service etc..
so making some point about commercial radio vs the BBCs output doesn't necessarily apply - Radio 1 could easily be funded by adverts... all the local radio stations, maybe not - but I'm not advocating making them commercial where there is a clear PSB aspect.
Well you don't seem to be able to draw the line other than stating that that well known brand names are obviously 'conventional TV'.
I'm finding it so hard because I don't know where the line is drawn and despite your assumption that it is obvious you've not been able to explain either - all you've done is provide some examples of a few services you consider to be 'TV' without any justification as to why they count and others don't
What, is it a conventional TV or not. IE is it received via tv in the normal way.
It's very clear indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Legal_framework
My question is what counts as a 'television program'?
My question is what counts as a 'television program'?
OK if it is so clear - what is 'the normal way' - you've still not been able to define anything despite your assertion that it is clear?
I'll post the question again and maybe you can clear it up for me:
yet you're still not able to explain...
BT TV is delivered over the internet via the IPTV protocol - is that 'broadcast on television'?
Is BBC 3 'broadcast on television' when it is online only?
If BBC3, an online only station, is 'TV' then how is that different to some random company setting up their own online 'TV' program?
I'm not saying there isn't a clear distinction I'm just asking what it is and so far people haven't been able to answer.
I fail to see how breaking the beeb up into separate parts does anything but weaken one of the best broadcasters in the world, one of the very few not at the call of advertising pounds/dollars.
The analogy to other public services stands, and just as with other public services some parts seem irrelevant to some people (Fire brigade school visits - But I'm not in school and have no kids/I don't watch eastenders) but to others they are valued.
We have plenty of choice in commercial TV, why would the Beeb broken into parts actually offer any better choice, it would likely offer more of the same, biased, advert heavy, culturally Less British content.
I have defined it, it's historic use if TV, not your modern included everything.
Think what you want you are wrong,
No being broadcast on youtube etc is not in the historic legal sense of broadcast.
Now bbc3 is online only, no you dint need a TV license as it's not longer a conventional TV broadcast, however you will soon require one to use iplayer. So yes you will. But not beviasr it's a TV broadcast.
Think what you want you are wrong,
No being broadcast on youtube etc is not in the historic legal sense of broadcast.
Now bbc3 is online only, no you dint need a TV license as it's not longer a conventional TV broadcast, however you will soon require one to use iplayer. So yes you will. But not beviasr it's a TV broadcast.
I'm not advocating breaking it up, I'm advocating some more sections of it being funded commercially. It already has a commercial arm for selling content worldwide and it already invests in commercial stations here too.
I'm asking a question not stating a position in what sense am I wrong?
You've not defined anything, you made a circular statement about 'conventional TV' which then left me in the same position as I'd want to know how you define 'conventional TV' you then also provided a handful of example of things you'd count as conventional TV which again doesn't help with an actual definition.
So what about BT TV or Now TV?
What do you count as being broadcast? There are various means by which to provide 'TV' I'm interested in how these affect whether a license is required.
Last edited:
Putting advertising in Media affects the content around it. Read some Noam Chomsky very interesting linguist proff.
We already have choice of such "Advertising filled" content and it's not of the quality of the Beeb, what you are advocating re adverts is likely to lower the quality of the content produced.
It's because of the licensing model that shows like wolf hall, peaky blinders etc get made.
I don't really get the fee. Just make it a tax.
By making it payable on all catch up services, every household will basically be liable anyway.
We would then have to ask ourselves should the tax money be used to fund such a large corporation.
By making it payable on all catch up services, every household will basically be liable anyway.
We would then have to ask ourselves should the tax money be used to fund such a large corporation.
that isn't inevitable, Channel 4 exists... other channels produce good shows, frankly prime time BBC 1 seems to actively compete with commercial providers to the point where they're essentially chasing the same shows - like the BBC winning the bidding to buy the rights to 'the voice' - that sort of thing isn't fulfilling any public need per say - had the BBC not bid so much another UK channel would have won and more or less the same show would have been broadcast by them instead... that is the sort of thing that can be and should be commercially funded not subsidised by a regressive licensing system
oh come off it those are exactly the sorts of shows that can and are made by commercial broadcasters... a period drama and a 1920s gangster series.
If Downton Abbey happened to be a BBC instead of an ITV show I'm sure there would be people retrospectively claiming that it is only because of the license fee that the BBC could take a risk with such a show.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 1,572
They can do what they like with the fee's. I don't watch live TV currently so I refuse to pay or even let the sneaky TV licence people in my house (they are commission based who get bonus money if they can fine people, sneaky Russians!).
If they change it so they won't let me watch iPlayer, fine. I think the only thing I watch there is have I got news for you, its good but not worth £11 a month.
If they change it so they won't let me watch iPlayer, fine. I think the only thing I watch there is have I got news for you, its good but not worth £11 a month.
Wolf Hall - The Creator doesn't seem to think so
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36245724
As for Peaky Blinders.
I can only think of one broadcaster that could make a show of that calibre and that is HBO, sadly their interest in the UK's Birmingham gangster scene at the turn of the century is likely to be low.
If you think Wolf Hall is somehow a relative of Downton you are seriously deluded.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
It's about time the license fee was dropped, or at the very least made to no longer be a criminal offence, that in itself is just bonkers.
Get more time for that than most "actual" crimes these days.
Get more time for that than most "actual" crimes these days.