View Full Version : So what is the BBC for and why should we pay a licence fee ?
Spectral Morn
14-09-2009, 16:28
Hi Guys
Major cut backs at the BBC staff take pay cuts, American TV shows such as Heroes and the Wire will not be bought again, so what are we paying for then ? Are we paying for past mistakes ? or Jonathan Ross (mistake?).
The BBC used to be at the fore front of everything that was new in TV, both home grown and import, but not now, when Neighbours went it was obvious that the Beeb was in trouble, and now with the best US shows not being renewed that trouble is confirmed. Do they pay the so called talent to much?
It is true that the TV market place is much larger now with many competing channels on the digital platforms but they are commercial and the Beeb is funded by a slave fee we all must pay, but for what ? If the Beeb can no longer compete with commercial stations (which are also in trouble witness the massive drop in ITV recently)then why should we pay anymore. It seems to me that the only thing of value is BBC radio and even that is now offered in crap sound soon (perhaps ? ) to be worse.
Most have digital TV now, but unless you pay Sky fees you won't have access to the best import TV or specialist interests (free view Sat or Digital TV, don't cover these very well). So why should we pay ? Discuss or have a rant.
Regards D S D L
I can say from personal experience that many people with debts up to their eyeballs either smoke, have a Sky package or both!!!!!!! Their sky TV would be the last thing to give up and quietly suggesting Freeview brings about loads of excuses..
The BBC were at the forefront of so much, but even in the seventies, many of their trained engineers were defecting to ITV because the latter paid more...
I can say from personal experience that many people with debts up to their eyeballs either smoke, have a Sky package or both!!!!!!!
Man, how true is that!!! It does my tits right in :steam:
It's the same as the ones who moan "I can't afford to eat well or feed my kids properly, so that's why we live on junk food, crisps and sweets"...... *YET* they can afford to smoke 20 fags a day, go to the pub every night, bingo twice a week, buy umpteen scratch cards and Lottery tickets, visit McDonalds, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe if they gave up all that shite, they'd be able to eat half-decent meals, lose some lard off their fat arses, be much healthier as a result, and save the NHS millions!!! Feckin' sheer muppetry of the highest order :mental: :mental:
They want to get their bloody priorities right!!!!!!!!!! :exactly:
<Rant over>
Marco.
Meanwhile, back on topic... (I don't disagree though, Marco/Dave)...
IM(V)HO - the best things about the BBC is their news and current affairs programming, regionalisation of both TV and Radio, and some great documentaries, particularly the natural history programming which is second to none I believe, especially HD like Planet Earth. Some of the music and arts coverage (BBC Four, and the radio) is very good, and Auntie's internet content is awesome too.
But, I do think the fee should be phased out, and essentially the BBC needs to be commercialised - my impression of them is that they are more akin to the civil service than a media company.
More generally, TV as we know it is in for a massive change - Spotify and it's ilk will change the way we (especially the general public - not "us"...) listen to music (you mark my words!?) - it's only a matter of time before the subscription model makes it properly to TV via fibre connections to homes - pay a fee, watch what ever you want, when you want it - never "own" it, but why would you need too?
The Grand Wazoo
14-09-2009, 18:10
Why is the whole TV broadcasting industry down the cludger?
Could it be because of this?
Because they've taken the (mostly worthless crap) content they were previously broadcasting & diluted it over several times as many stations.
That meant that for the commercial stations the advertising spend which is finite & dwindling as everyone & every company cuts costs to the bone is also diluted.
Reduced advertising revenue = reduced budget = derivative shite.
The no-brain public watches derivative shite because that's what they're fed.
Because the shite gets viewed, the broadcasters think that's what we want.
So they make more derivative shite.
The BBC looks at the viewing figures -
"Look at what they're doing - making and buying derivative shite - the public loves it! They must do just look at the figures! Quick go make some high quality BBC type derivative shite!!!"
Once again we were told more choice = quality. Once again we're left with an inferior product or service.
My TV has not been switched on more than 5 times in the last two months other than for the news or to watch DVD's.
Man, how true is that!!! It does my tits right in :steam:
Marco.
So .... , the secret's out at last - thats why you're so into wearing shlinky dreeses and high heels - that explains a lot.
Sorry to everybody else - we should all promise not to give him any more excuses to get on his hobby horse again - apologies but I just couldn't resist :lolsign:
Cheers,
Haselsh1
14-09-2009, 18:57
Man, how true is that!!! It does my tits right in :steam:
It's the same as the ones who moan "I can't afford to eat well or feed my kids properly, so that's why we live on junk food, crisps and sweets"...... *YET* they can afford to smoke 20 fags a day, go to the pub every night, bingo twice a week, buy umpteen scratch cards and Lottery tickets, visit McDonalds, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe if they gave up all that shite, they'd be able to eat half-decent meals, lose some lard off their fat arses, be much healthier as a result, and save the NHS millions!!! Feckin' sheer muppetry of the highest order :mental: :mental:
They want to get their bloody priorities right!!!!!!!!!! :exactly:
<Rant over>
Marco.
Love it...!!! LOVE IT...!!!
Haselsh1
14-09-2009, 19:00
One of the things I find hard to swallow about the BBC and their yearly charges is the way they show a program on TV, say BBC 2, and then repeat it every few days over and over again. It's getting to the point now were one can watch the same program three times in the same week. And then we have iPlayer...!!!
The Grand Wazoo
14-09-2009, 19:12
One of the things I find hard to swallow about the BBC and their yearly charges is the way they show a program on TV, say BBC 2, and then repeat it every few days over and over again. It's getting to the point now were one can watch the same program three times in the same week. And then we have iPlayer...!!!
The BBC - making the unmissable omnipresent
But, I do think the fee should be phased out, and essentially the BBC needs to be commercialised - my impression of them is that they are more akin to the civil service than a media company.
NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!, IMHO.
The BBC, for all it's imperfections, and there are many, should be left as it is in principle, with the aim of inform, educate and entertain the Great British public. It is nominally independent of government and big business and comes the nearest we have, though still too distant, to a truly unbiased source of information, with no 'axe to grind' other than to further the correct use of the English language and the concept of 'Britishness', once almost universally respected throughout the world (note I did not say liked or appreciated but respected). Those days are now long gone and our limp wristed abandonment of the English language to be mangled by others such as our cousins across the pond with their ubiquitous movie, entertainment and 'news' machines thrusting down everybody's throat their view of life and how we should all aspire to it has played no small part in the demise of being British. Soon we shall even abandon the claim to speak English and meekly state that our native language is American if the present trend continues - bah, humbug!!
Rant over,
Supporter of St. George,
Sheffield.
NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!, IMHO.
The BBC, for all it's imperfections, and there are many, should be left as it is in principle, with the aim of inform, educate and entertain the Great British public. It is nominally independent of government and big business and comes the nearest we have, though still too distant, to a truly unbiased source of information, with no 'axe to grind' other than to further the correct use of the English language and the concept of 'Britishness', once almost universally respected throughout the world (note I did not say liked or appreciated but respected). Those days are now long gone and our limp wristed abandonment of the English language to be mangled by others such as our cousins across the pond with their ubiquitous movie, entertainment and 'news' machines thrusting down everybody's throat their view of life and how we should all aspire to it has played no small part in the demise of being British. Soon we shall even abandon the claim to speak English and meekly state that our native language is American if the present trend continues - bah, humbug!!
Rant over,
Supporter of St. George,
Sheffield.
Agree totally about not commercialising the BBC, it would be an absolute disaster...keep it an advert free zone, worth the fee IMHO just for this one aspect alone.
Guess I've shown my true Capitalist colours again! :o
I TOTALLY agree with the sentiment - (and the "ouput" that is relevant to this response, as detailed in my original reply) - but, sadly, just having "Britishness" is not going to save "the Corporation" - and my reference to "the BBC needs to be commercialised" doesn't necessarily mean they have to start advertising - they need to be run as a business, not a charity - if they are to survive, and stay relevant.
To a degree, this is happening anyway - a lot of BBC output is syndicated around the world "commercially" (i.e. they get paid for it) - that is what I mean by "commercialisation" - the Beeb needs to stand on it's own two feet because whether any of us like or agree with it, the chances of licence support ad infinitum is extremely unlikely... (all IMHO of course!)
Spectral Morn
14-09-2009, 22:46
Guess I've shown my true Capitalist colours again! :o
I TOTALLY agree with the sentiment - (and the "ouput" that is relevant to this response, as detailed in my original reply) - but, sadly, just having "Britishness" is not going to save "the Corporation" - and my reference to "the BBC needs to be commercialised" doesn't necessarily mean they have to start advertising - they need to be run as a business, not a charity - if they are to survive, and stay relevant.
To a degree, this is happening anyway - a lot of BBC output is syndicated around the world "commercially" (i.e. they get paid for it) - that is what I mean by "commercialisation" - the Beeb needs to stand on it's own two feet because whether any of us like or agree with it, the chances of licence support ad infinitum is extremely unlikely... (all IMHO of course!)
But they bought Lonely Planet Guide .....scuse me What ? (we bought it really). I am sick of being milked by the Beeb and not being able to watch the sort of quality shows they used to do.
Regards D S D L
Guess I've shown my true Capitalist colours again!
....... because whether any of us like or agree with it, the chances of licence support ad infinitum is extremely unlikely... (all IMHO of course!)
I sincerely hope you're wrong - he who pays the piper calls the tune and I'd much rather Joe Public paid the piper, willingly or not, than commercial interests. It was 'commercial interests' that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, irrespective of what all the lying (i.e. normal) politicians tried to sell us, and what's even worse is that it was USA commercial interests rather than, and to the exclusion of, UK commercial interests.
The main problem with capitalism is that it encourages excess (Bankers bonuses for instance) and greed (the obscenely quick return of the obscenely high Bankers bonuses for already obscenely rich Bankers for example). When you are lucky enough to be running a multi-million pound bank or company (and don't tell me that they all get to these postions on merit, unless how far you are prepared to bend the rules is regarded as a desirable attribute), then who is going to notice or even care if you award yourself a package of a fraction of 1% of turnover when the figures indicate the company is profitable - it's only scrutinised when the profits aren't there but the pakage remains.
The best thing that can be said about capitalism is that it's better than the alternative but that doesn't mean that it's good - in it's current form it's just the lesser of two evils.
My two penn'orth, again!
Cheers,
But they bought Lonely Planet Guide .....scuse me What ? (we bought it really). I am sick of being milked by the Beeb...
I can't comment with any authority - I'm not aware of the financials on the deal, or the company, were they in a lot of debt/losing a lot of money?
Guess I've shown my true Capitalist colours again! :o
I TOTALLY agree with the sentiment - (and the "ouput" that is relevant to this response, as detailed in my original reply) - but, sadly, just having "Britishness" is not going to save "the Corporation" - and my reference to "the BBC needs to be commercialised" doesn't necessarily mean they have to start advertising - they need to be run as a business, not a charity - if they are to survive, and stay relevant.
To a degree, this is happening anyway - a lot of BBC output is syndicated around the world "commercially" (i.e. they get paid for it) - that is what I mean by "commercialisation" - the Beeb needs to stand on it's own two feet because whether any of us like or agree with it, the chances of licence support ad infinitum is extremely unlikely... (all IMHO of course!)
Yes the Beeb has a commercial revenue stream already accounting for £720m last year but that is in no way enough for them to continue in their present form. That commercial market is just not big enough and they would shrink without the license fee bringing down the programming output which would result in less commercial sales...catch22. The corp needs to remain as it is otherwise it will not be able to develop and continue generating the program material it does now....it will be open to market forces and driven by the need for profit ahead of programing and so go down the pan like so many other commercial operations. All IMHO ;)
The Grand Wazoo
15-09-2009, 08:29
The corp needs to remain as it is otherwise it will not be able to develop and continue generating the program material it does now....it will be open to market forces and driven by the need for profit ahead of programing and so go down the pan like so many other commercial operations. All IMHO
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think that's pretty much the crux of the biscuit
And Dave......
NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!, IMHO.
.........you didn't type 'No' enough times!
Some decades ago, we used to have a 30 minute ITV programme split into two, with just one commercial break to ruin the flow. If you have the vids Neil of the Gerry Anderson shows, the scene breaks are carefully timed around the old break points. These days, we have films abruptly and automatically chopped up into five to ten minute segments and without a human being to fade in or out.. A terrible state of affairs.
aquapiranha
15-09-2009, 12:56
All new TV's should come unable to recieve BBC programmes, and if you want to watch them you should pay and be given a code that you can input via the remote to activate BBC channels. Job done.
BTW, I don't watch TV so don't really care either way
:)
You only need a licence to watch live TV (whoever provides it) so if you do away with all tellys in the house and only have computer(s) then you can watch the iPlayer and catchup to your hearts' content for free.
However, it can be rather difficult convincing the TV Licencing people that you no longer have a Telly (http://www.marmalade.net/lime/).
Cheers
NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!, IMHO.
The BBC, for all it's imperfections, and there are many, should be left as it is in principle, with the aim of inform, educate and entertain the Great British public. It is nominally independent of government and big business and comes the nearest we have, though still too distant, to a truly unbiased source of information, with no 'axe to grind' other than to further the correct use of the English language and the concept of 'Britishness', once almost universally respected throughout the world (note I did not say liked or appreciated but respected). Those days are now long gone and our limp wristed abandonment of the English language to be mangled by others such as our cousins across the pond with their ubiquitous movie, entertainment and 'news' machines thrusting down everybody's throat their view of life and how we should all aspire to it has played no small part in the demise of being British. Soon we shall even abandon the claim to speak English and meekly state that our native language is American if the present trend continues - bah, humbug!!
Rant over,
Supporter of St. George,
Sheffield.
I'm right with you there Dave.
There are some people who complain of having to purchase a TV licence when they do not watch any of the BBC channels. This is partly understandable, however the TV licence is a licence to receive, and whilst it pays for the BBC it ought not be required by those who only watch the commercial channels. As someone who virtually never watches the commercial channels, why should I have to pay for them through the goods that I purchase (admittedly inessentials such as food and cleaning items)? As an example, the cost of advertising adds a typical figure of £5K to the price of your new car.
PS Also agree with you Marco. Just the same as people who refuse to pay for house and contents insurance, yet complain when their 50" plasma TV is damaged in a flood or whatever.
Grumpy of Baddow
Rare Bird
04-10-2009, 11:05
Man, how true is that!!! It does my tits right in :steam:
It's the same as the ones who moan "I can't afford to eat well or feed my kids properly, so that's why we live on junk food, crisps and sweets"...... *YET* they can afford to smoke 20 fags a day, go to the pub every night, bingo twice a week, buy umpteen scratch cards and Lottery tickets, visit McDonalds, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe if they gave up all that shite, they'd be able to eat half-decent meals, lose some lard off their fat arses, be much healthier as a result, and save the NHS millions!!! Feckin' sheer muppetry of the highest order :mental: :mental:
They want to get their bloody priorities right!!!!!!!!!! :exactly:
<Rant over>
Marco.
What being fat or overweight has anything to do with it, both myself & wife are overweight makes us bad does it??
Comments like that do my tits in aswell :steam:
I wouldnt mind the BBC hitting the rails..I for one don't watch television at all, sure we have Sky telly & the latest LCD TV bit were lucky if it get more than 12 hours use a week..Certainly don't watch BBC yet i still have to pay a licence to watch even though i pay my Sky fee!
What being fat or overweight has anything to do with it, both myself & wife are overweight makes us bad does it??
Of course not.
Andre, your good lady and you are entitled to live how you like. All I'm saying is that some people who 'plead poverty', saying that they can't afford to eat well, aren't necessarily as 'poor' as they make out ;)
It's a matter of education more than money, and prioritising what's really important.
Quite simply, if you can afford to smoke 20 fags a day, go to the pub every night, bingo twice a week, buy umpteen scratch cards and Lottery tickets, visit McDonalds, etc, you can afford to shove some decent, healthy, food inside yer gob!
As I said, some folk need to get their priorities right and return to proper home-cooking and eating fresh produce, like it was at one time, instead of stuffing their gobs full of processed muck like frozen pizzas from Farmfoods, burgers, and oven chips full of salt and fat :)
Marco.
I beg you to pardon me to interfere with this subject, that certainly needs having a thorough knowledge of the British society and habits (that I don't have).
Nevertheless, for having dealt with similar situations in Greece and France, I can tell you that:
A country having a mass media independent from government and main business interests (which are temporary, as always) is a real advantage. For everybody, even for the long-term business and for the governmental ethics.
Once more, I apologize for the interference, I know that you will find your way. Just be sure it's yours. ;)
I beg you to pardon me to interfere with this subject, that certainly needs having a thorough knowledge of the British society and habits (that I don't have).
Nevertheless, for having dealt with similar situations in Greece and France, I can tell you that:
A country having a mass media independent from government and main business interests (which are temporary, as always) is a real advantage. For everybody, even for the long-term business and for the governmental ethics.
Once more, I apologize for the interference, I know that you will find your way. Just be sure it's yours. ;)
Hi Themis,
Never be afraid to chip in to any thread with your opinion - that's what we're here for.
I absolutely agree with you, some of us won't appreciate what we've got until we've lost it. IMHO the government and big business are two sides of the same coin in that government is much more willing to give big business the sort of regime and loopholes that they feel they need than it is to govern 'for the people'.
Look at Italy for an example - a totally corrupt and dishoinest PM, IMHO, who obtained power and now hangs on to it purely by virtue of his business cronies and interests, primarily his de facto control of the media. While ever the BBC loses no more of it's current independence, that sort of 'democracy' will never happen in the UK (I hope :) ).
Rant over!
Cheers,
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.