TV Licence Super Thread

[a1ex2001]

We had subscription TV 30+ years ago. You just have a decoder box with an insertable membership card. Sky used it forever.

That way only the people who want it need to buy it.



AI is heavily censored, so ignores the whole peado thing.

So now we are defining the entirety of the BBC by ‘the wholeness thing’ great skills! You can keep arguing against it all you like but the evidence says the BBC is still internationally well known and respected. Even here in the UK the vast majority of people are still regularly consuming BBC services be it TV, streaming, radio etc.

I get that some people here don’t like the BBC and don’t consume it’s output but that doesn’t mean you can just adjust the facts to suit your argument.

The BBC is still an internationally recognised institution and still plays a significant part in the lives of people in the UK. The BBC’s output is generally independent, factual and balanced. These are all simple facts even though you might wish they weren’t!

 

[jpaul]

Seems to be a misinformation campaign against the bbc - thry were reporting X feeds discussing it's apparent AI generated content;
their wall to wall advertising campaign for traitors and strictly seems to be up there with the best/netflix's capability though.

France is now financing public tv from VAT so that confounds earlier post LOL citizens are paying,
equally channel4 is 'reinventing' itself, so not in rude health.

Moderator’s score: 4/10. Poor sentence structure, inconsistent punctuation, a semicolon isn't a decorative full stop. Attention to grammar required!

 

[Tavis75]

We had subscription TV 30+ years ago. You just have a decoder box with an insertable membership card. Sky used it forever.

Yes, that's why I said people would have to buy new TVs\set-top boxes, switching to an encrypted broadcast would stop millions of TVs and devices working, that's a massive issue to resolve. A set-top box might be a solution for a TV, but then you have PVRs and all sorts of other devices that would no longer work and where plugging in a set-top box isn't a fix.

 

[C Kent]

Snip

I think ultimately we'll have to agree to disagree, the bbc and its proponents seem to be stuck in the past regarding tv viewing habits and how the bbc should be funded. On one hand you've those who believe everyone in the uk should be made to fund it regardless if you watch their content and regardless if you are struggling with the cost of living and those would prefer to see a more modern approach where those that want it can.

There's nothing ultimately stopping them from separating out different elements - tv, radio and online services and having different subscription/tier prices based on what you consume. 10 quid a month for a BBC tv licence that gives you access to BBC television content/iplayer, 3 quid for radio and 3 quid for online (BBC website access locked behind a paywall similar to the times, telegraph etc where you either link your one size fits all licence or registering and paying is your online version). Have a cheaper version based on what you require, wanna have the full whack, that's 15quid a month instead of £16, want radio and online, thats a fiver rather than 6quid etc. That in itself would probably require modernisation tho, as i believe the only tracker for the tv licence is by address rather than anything else tangible.

Elements such as the world service could be fully subsided by the government, I believe its approx. cost to the bbc is 400m p.a, with the government giving a 150m subsidy every year for it, they'll just have to find some cash down the back of the sofa, maybe a handful less illegal migrants per year /chortle.

Actual modernisation of the bbc would require the bbc themselves to get out of their old mindset of everyone needs to pay, that's not what they want tho. Their idea of modernisation is 'how can we get more people to be forced to pay', you only have to look at how they describe folks who stopped paying for a tv licence and the lengths they go to to force them to.

 

[jpaul]

even if the british public doesn't care about bbc&paying the license fee, foreign actors do
one of the aforementioned bbc fake news reports not sure how the BBC can ensure legitimacy of posts attributed to it,
... imitation is the highest form of flattery

Moderator’s score: 2/10. Another post rife with poor sentence construction, inconsistent capitalisation and an almost complete absence of punctuation.

 

[a1ex2001]

Actual modernisation of the bbc would require the bbc themselves to get out of their old mindset of everyone needs to pay, that's not what they want tho. Their idea of modernisation is 'how can we get more people to be forced to pay', you only have to look at how they describe folks who stopped paying for a tv licence and the lengths they go to to force them to.

You still have this all wrong, the funding of the BBC is not something the BBC decides it is driven by Government every ten years when the BBC's public service broadcasting charter is up for renewal, the BBC is the governments current chosen form of public service broadcaster and they choose to fund it using a license fee (which drives the associated process of chasing those without a license) but it is considering as part of the current charter renewal process alternative funding mechanisms as well as the overall remit of the public service broadcaster.

There's nothing ultimately stopping them from separating out different elements - tv, radio and online services and having different subscription/tier prices based on what you consume. 10 quid a month for a BBC tv licence that gives you access to BBC television content/iplayer, 3 quid for radio and 3 quid for online (BBC website access locked behind a paywall similar to the times, telegraph etc where you either link your one size fits all licence or registering and paying is your online version). Have a cheaper version based on what you require, wanna have the full whack, that's 15quid a month instead of £16, want radio and online, thats a fiver rather than 6quid etc. That in itself would probably require modernisation tho, as i believe the only tracker for the tv licence is by address rather than anything else tangible.

How do you make a radio station subscription, I'm not aware of the UK ever having had subscription radio and I don't think current radio sets have the necessary software/hardware to process such a thing? Similarly I don't think current freeview hardware installed in most homes has the ability to deliver this? Add to this that a subscription model is incompatible with a public service broadcaster, the whole point of which is to be able to reach as much of the population as possible which the BBC does pretty well at given the massive percentage (80+%) of UK adults accessing a BBC service weekly.

The big thing you seem to be consistently getting wrong is equating the BBC with commercial television companies, the BBC in it's current format only exists as a statutory public service broadcaster established by the UK government. The decision you are getting at is does the UK need a public service broadcaster and I think any decision to in effect close the BBC (it is not currently a commercial company) and transfer it's assets to a private company would need to be part of a parties election manifesto as it would be a massive cultural change that could never easily be reversed.

.

 

[C Kent]

You still have this all wrong, the funding of the BBC is not something the BBC decides it is driven by Government

Ah yes, the old the bbc has no input whatsoever schtick

every ten years when the BBC's public service broadcasting charter is up for renewal, the BBC is the governments current chosen form of public service broadcaster and they choose to fund it using a license fee (which drives the associated process of chasing those without a license) but it is considering as part of the current charter renewal process alternative funding mechanisms as well as the overall remit of the public service broadcaster.

yes i know what the charter is and when its up for renewal (I did find it amusing when you were getting the dates wrong previously in this thread though )

How do you make a radio station subscription, I'm not aware of the UK ever having had subscription radio and I don't think current radio sets have the necessary software/hardware to process such a thing? Similarly I don't think current freeview hardware installed in most homes has the ability to deliver this?

Same way the tv licence is currently administered and paid for, 'if you listen to the radio that'll be 3 quid pls'. If you want it to be free and not a part of the licence fee like it is now I would have no issue with that either.

Add to this that a subscription model is incompatible with a public service broadcaster, the whole point of which is to be able to reach as much of the population as possible which the BBC does pretty well at given the massive percentage (80+%) of UK adults accessing a BBC service weekly.

Amusingly the source for the "massive percentage of UK adults accessing a BBC service weekly" is the bbc itself and its basically 'trust us bro' - nope not joking, there have been multiple FOI requests made to the bbc for the raw data and they they are unable to provide it for "reasons"..

The big thing you seem to be consistently getting wrong is equating the BBC with commercial television companies, the BBC in it's current format only exists as a statutory public service broadcaster established by the UK government. The decision you are getting at is does the UK need a public service broadcaster and I think any decision to in effect close the BBC (it is not currently a commercial company) and transfer it's assets to a private company would need to be part of a parties election manifesto as it would be a massive cultural change that could never easily be reversed.

.

No one is getting anything wrong, we're fully aware what the bbc is. The bone of contention is essentially 'is the bbc fit for purpose in its current iteration'. You think it is, I think it isnt. I personally would have no issue if the whole rotten, corrupt, pedo covering institution was burnt to the ground. What I am doing is suggesting a middle ground where everyone is happy, folks such as yourself who think its essential are covered, and those who dont have any use for it are covered.

 

[a1ex2001]

Ah yes, the old the bbc has no input whatsoever schtick

yes i know what the charter is and when its up for renewal (I did find it amusing when you were getting the dates wrong previously in this thread though )

Nobody is saying the BBC gets no input just that they are not the decision makers or drivers. Of course they have input otherwise how would the government know what the BBC needs to deliver it's services or what services it could deliver with a reduced budget. The government will rightly take input from a variety of sources including the great unwashed that is us as citizens and then they will decide how to proceed not the BBC, this pretence that the BBC is some all powerful organisation with power over government does your argument no favours.

Same way the tv licence is currently administered and paid for, 'if you listen to the radio that'll be 3 quid pls'. If you want it to be free and not a part of the licence fee like it is now I would have no issue with that either.

So a radio license not a subscription, the two are very different things as you keep saying.

Amusingly the source for the "massive percentage of UK adults accessing a BBC service weekly" is the bbc itself and its basically 'trust us bro' - nope not joking, there have been multiple FOI requests made to the bbc for the raw data and they they are unable to provide it for "reasons"..

All the figured in the BBC annual report are independently verified with the headline percentages for UK adult reach comming from ipsos who are generally pretty trusted unless of course you are saying they are in on the great BBC conspiracy that makes up thee numbers?

No one is getting anything wrong, we're fully aware what the bbc is. The bone of contention is essentially 'is the bbc fit for purpose in its current iteration'. You think it is, I think it isnt. I personally would have no issue if the whole rotten, corrupt, pedo covering institution was burnt to the ground. What I am doing is suggesting a middle ground where everyone is happy, folks such as yourself who think its essential are covered, and those who dont have any use for it are covered.

Your still completely missing the public broadcaster point, I don't know if you are doing it on purpose or not. You can't have a public broadcaster that requires a subscription to watch it would no longer be a public broadcaster, I get that you don't like the BBC or see a need for it so what you need to stop doing is railing against the license fee and start a campaign to abolition the governments public broadcast service you should probably start by writing to your MP and the leaders of which ever political party you support and asking them to make abolishing the UK's public broadcast service part of their manifesto at the next election. I believe Nigel ha hinted at such a thing, although he does seem to enjoy appearing on their programs rather a lot......

 

[C Kent]

All the figured in the BBC annual report are independently verified with the headline percentages for UK adult reach comming from ipsos who are generally pretty trusted unless of course you are saying they are in on the great BBC conspiracy that makes up thee numbers?

Yes Ipsos and the bbc developed 'BBC Compass' to gauge the figures and that where the 80%+ number comes from. 'Independently verified' and yet no one can obtain the raw figures, how very bbc eh

Your still completely missing the public broadcaster point, I don't know if you are doing it on purpose or not. You can't have a public broadcaster that requires a subscription to watch it would no longer be a public broadcaster, I get that you don't like the BBC or see a need for it so what you need to stop doing is railing against the license fee and start a campaign to abolition the governments public broadcast service you should probably start by writing to your MP and the leaders of which ever political party you support and asking them to make abolishing the UK's public broadcast service part of their manifesto at the next election. I believe Nigel ha hinted at such a thing, although he does seem to enjoy appearing on their programs rather a lot......

The licence is in essence a subscription, just dressed up differently.

 

[a1ex2001]

Yes Ipsos and the bbc developed 'BBC Compass' to gauge the figures and that where the 80%+ number comes from. 'Independently verified' and yet no one can obtain the raw figures, how very bbc eh

The licence is in essence a subscription, just dressed up differently.

For the numbers to be dodgy Ipsos would have to be in on the conspiracy so are you just shouting into the dark because you don't like the BBC or are you accusing one of the worlds most trusted polling companies of being complicit in a campaign to deceive the British People? Do you really find it so hard to believe those numbers given the breadth of BBC services in the market, it's only anecdotal but everyone in my circle of extended friendships regularly uses BBC services even if it is only checking the weather forecast, football scores or letting the kids watch horrible histories (probably should let them watch that is it's likely considered extreme left wing woke nonsense)

The license fee is not a subscription as you are well aware it is just a convenient equivalence for those arguing for an end to public service broadcasting in the UK, as it sounds much better when you say 'make those who watch it pay for it', oh and once again you fail in any way to address the UK's public service broadcast provision, it's ok to say you don't think we need one even though every country in Europe pretty much has one!

 

[C Kent]

For the numbers to be dodgy Ipsos would have to be in on the conspiracy so are you just shouting into the dark because you don't like the BBC or are you accusing one of the worlds most trusted polling companies of being complicit in a campaign to deceive the British People? Do you really find it so hard to believe those numbers given the breadth of BBC services in the market, it's only anecdotal but everyone in my circle of extended friendships regularly uses BBC services even if it is only checking the weather forecast, football scores or letting the kids watch horrible histories (probably should let them watch that is it's likely considered extreme left wing woke nonsense)

Sure, find the raw, unfiltered data that confirms the bbc figures if you can. And no anecdotal evidence isn't 'admissible'. Im actually in agreement that a very large percentage of people check the bcc website (either directly or consume bbc content via twitter and the like) rather than use conventional bbc television/programming, its why i suggested that the bbc website be behind a paywall that would require a subscription that's tied to the licence..

The license fee is not a subscription as you are well aware it is just a convenient equivalence for those arguing for an end to public service broadcasting in the UK, as it sounds much better when you say 'make those who watch it pay for it', oh and once again you fail in any way to address the UK's public service broadcast provision, it's ok to say you don't think we need one even though every country in Europe pretty much has one!

I think you are being deliberately obtuse here, there's nothing that states public service broadcasting in the uk is required to be funded by everyone, be that the bbc or ch4 etc. The royal charter doesnt give the bbc the power to demand a fee from every household regardless.

Yes you've already used the 'but other countries do' argument, its asinine.

 

[Dis86]

I dunno who 'the moderator' is. But im loving them.

XXX

 

[a1ex2001]

Sure, find the raw, unfiltered data that confirms the bbc figures if you can. And no anecdotal evidence isn't 'admissible'. Im actually in agreement that a very large percentage of people check the bcc website (either directly or consume bbc content via twitter and the like) rather than use conventional bbc television/programming, its why i suggested that the bbc website be behind a paywall that would require a subscription that's tied to the licence..

I think you are being deliberately obtuse here, there's nothing that states public service broadcasting in the uk is required to be funded by everyone, be that the bbc or ch4 etc. The royal charter doesnt give the bbc the power to demand a fee from every household regardless.

Yes you've already used the 'but other countries do' argument, its asinine.

Public service broadcasting needs to be publicly funded and available to everyone otherwise it ceases to be a public service broadcaster and just becomes another pay TV service. If you put the bbc website behind a paywall it is no longer a public service it is a private business so would need the BBC in it’s current form to be wound up and the assets transferred to a private business.

Again the BBC are not demanding a fee from every house hold (such ridiculous hyperbole) the government are assessing how best to fund public service broadcasting be that a continuation of the license fee or another method (they have yet to announce a decision). The government will decide how best to fund the public service broadcasting that it deems necessary and then assign the funds to the BBC. You seem to be under the illusion that the BBC is some powerful, evil secret society controlling everything behind the scenes.

 

[C Kent]

Public service broadcasting needs to be publicly funded and available to everyone otherwise it ceases to be a public service broadcasting needs and just becomes another pay TV service. If you put the bbc website behind a paywall it is no longer a public service it is a private business so would need the BBC in it’s current form to be wound up and the assets transferred to a private business.

Again the BBC are not demanding a fee from every house hold (such ridiculous hyperbole) the government are assessing how best to fund public service broadcasting be that a continuation of the license fee or another method (they have yet to announce a decision). The government will decide how best to fund the public service broadcasting that it deems necessary and then assign the funds to the BBC.

It is publicly funded, changing the current payment collection method won't change that one iota. The tv licence is already a 'paywall' so to speak, as the bbc is not 'available to everyone' without paying the 180quid

You seem to be under the illusion that the BBC is some powerful, evil secret society controlling everything behind the scenes.

Couldn't find it eh, no surprise there.

 

[a1ex2001]

It is publicly funded, changing the current payment collection method won't change that one iota. The tv licence is already a 'paywall' so to speak, as the bbc is not 'available to everyone' without paying the 180quid

Couldn't find it eh, no surprise there.

It’s not behind a paywall what silliness and it is available to anyone with a standard TV, radio or internet connection only some of which is even covered by the license. Which again you well know.

I don’t need to see the raw data I trust IPSOS to have no part in verifying false figures, what would they stand to gain which would be comparable to destroying there entire business if they got caught? Again I get that some people don’t trust the BBC, although I bet they wouldn’t be asking for the raw data if it supported there desire that the BBC was no longer relevant or consumed on mass by the people of Britain.

 

[C Kent]

It’s not behind a paywall what silliness and it is available to anyone with a standard TV, radio or internet connection only some of which is even covered by the license. Which again you well know.

Are you suppose to watch bbc content if you don't pay for a tv licence?

All you are doing is playing semantics at this point in time

 

[a1ex2001]

Are you suppose to watch bbc content if you don't pay for a tv licence?

All you are doing is playing semantics at this point in time

You are not allowed to watch TV but you don’t need a license to consume as much radio and online content as you like all of which people in this thread have suggested should be behind a paywall/subscription. The license fee must be different to a subscription as all the people who are anti the bbc keep saying it should move to a subscription model so only those who want it have to pay for it. You really can’t have it both ways at least I’m being consistent

 

[C Kent]

You are not allowed to watch TV but you don’t need a license to consume as much radio and online content as you like all of which people in this thread have suggested should be behind a paywall/subscription. The license fee must be different to a subscription as all the people who are anti the bbc keep saying it should move to a subscription model so only those who want it have to pay for it. You really can’t have it both ways at least I’m being consistent

Radio takes its funding from the tv licence, as does bbc online services. All I'm doing/suggesting is breaking it up into smaller pieces so people can pick and choose what bbc content they consume via different l'icences', aka what content they want to 'subscribe' to.

Not that hard to comprehend is it.

 

[a1ex2001]

Radio takes its funding from the tv licence, as does bbc online services. All I'm doing/suggesting is breaking it up into smaller pieces so people can pick and choose what bbc content they consume via different l'icences', aka what content they want to 'subscribe' to.

Not that hard to comprehend is it.

What you are suggesting can’t happen with the BBC if it is to remain a public service broadcaster owned by the British people (including you even if you don’t pay the license). If an you suggest it is changed into a subscription based business you would in effect need to wind up the BBC as it stands and then transfer it’s assets to a different company and structure that would then use them to attempt to operate as a business. That is a pretty complicated prospect as the assets of the BBC belong to the nation and giving them to a private enterprise isn’t and shouldn’t be straight forward (every privatisation this country has ever done hasn’t been to the benefit of the people).

I have no problem comprehending what you suggest it just seems that you haven’t thought through the complications of effectively privatising a national institution.

 

[C Kent]

What you are suggesting can’t happen with the BBC if it is to remain a public service broadcaster owned by the British people (including you even if you don’t pay the license). If an you suggest it is changed into a subscription based business you would in effect need to wind up the BBC as it stands and then transfer it’s assets to a different company and structure that would then use them to attempt to operate as a business. That is a pretty complicated prospect as the assets of the BBC belong to the nation and giving them to a private enterprise isn’t and shouldn’t be straight forward (every privatisation this country has ever done hasn’t been to the benefit of the people).

I have no problem comprehending what you suggest it just seems that you haven’t thought through the complications of effectively privatising a national institution.

lol, no it wouldn't As before changing how you pay for bbc content doesnt mean its no longer a public service broadcaster. Introducing a subscription based model is literally one of the suggestions on the table along with a tax added to council tax bills, internet providers etc etc

you are trolling now right, surely