Reply With QuoteI’m too lazy to argue the toss frankly....
Only if you watch anything live. Football on Amazon Prime, for example:Originally Posted by jaytip
I’m too lazy to argue the toss frankly....
Thank you.
Last edited by jaytip; 13th February 2021 at 15:18.
So most young people are extreme?
I just don’t like it so why am I being made to pay.
I like Netflix but I wouldn’t dream of forcing people to pay for it and not watch it.
The whole idea of a license fee is outdated a morally repugnant.
I'm annoyed by the fact that large families with working adult members all living in the same dwelling, in effect each pay 'little' or 'zero' towards the cost of their TV viewing .. because the TV licence is for the dwelling and not its individual occupants. And same argument applies ref council tax where individual house occupants earning high salaries / wages, can in effect, pay Sweet Fanny Adams' towards their local authority's expenditure. Why should e.g., couples and singletons, subsidise multi-occupied neighbours houses' TV viewing and very necessary local authority expenditure?
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
But, with all due respect, that’s because others, who get nothing out of it, are being forced to subsidise it for you.
Why? The licence fee is to pay for the BBC, I refuse to pay for that rubbish and always will. I’ll happily pay for Netflix which I watch on my phone or at home but that’s it. You could close the BBC and ITV down tomorrow it wouldn’t be a big loss.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
But these aren’t competing with free market competitors.
I’ve never used that word and wouldn’t. But just a heads up, your view that any one who uses that word is an extremist presents as pretty extreme.
Good for you. Argue the toss with lawyers if you wish.
Doesn’t sound like you need one and keep in mind that watching 1 minute behind isn’t live
How many free market competitors have been providing hundreds of hours of programming for schools during lockdown?
Just because some people like the BBC it doesn’t make it morally sound.
Why not have a chain of gyms and force people to have a subscription.
There was need for a subscription 60 odd years ago but there’s no justification now
What a ridiculous comparison.
What is inmmoral about children's education?
Has that been tested in court? Even on Virgin cable TV, there's a slight lag between HD and SD broadcasts, is the HD one not live?
I suspect there's a 'lag' between an action happening and it appearing on any TV screen - I'd be interested to know what constitutes live.
If you're right, could I just watch +1 channels without a licence?
I'm sure the argument today is similar to that 60 years ago - If you only make TV that advertisers want to be associated with, you'll only make popularist TV - No more Mastermind, no more Panorama, etc, etc. ITV used to make programmes like World In Action and the World At War, I can't think of anything similar they've made in recent years. Lots of Ant and Dec, Love Island, etc.
I rarely watch it, but BBC Parliament is a channel the PPV model would never support - You can argue that seeing how our leaders behave and make laws that affect us is highly valuable TV.
For me, the biggest plus about the BBC is much of its output is British in style and content - I'd love to see a correlation between people who voted to leave the EU and those who want to see the BBC curtailed - I suspect there would be a strong relationship, and yet without the BBC we'd have almost entirely US based TV content.
Some US drama and comedy is good, even excellent, but I don't want to see nothing but the lives of people in LA and Detroit presented on my TV, they mean little to me.
M
Last edited by snowman; 13th February 2021 at 17:06.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Why, both are services that be provided in a free market.
Clearly Children’s education is far from their primary purpose. That’s a straw man argument. Even if this, fractionally small, part of their content helped, it doesn’t give a moral justification for criminalising someone who doesn’t want to pay the licence fee. The lessons were fine but they hardly substituted for teachers and schools anyway.
Talk about ridiculous, let’s all pay £140 odd a year for a once in a 50 year pandemic and so they can knock together a few lessons for children.
I think it's considered 'live' if watched when being broadcast, not when the event is taking place.
So if there's no free market competition for something the Government or council should provide it?
Anyway, there are private conveniences, health services and so on.
Nowhere near as bad, IMO.The BBC are almost as bad at advertising as the commercial channels; they are just advertising their own output. It's often done with (presumably) hugely expensively produced adverts.
For a start I don't mind them telling me what other programmes they have available, but more importantly they don't interrupt their programmes every 10 minutes to do so.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Well, if there is no demand for a service, clearly not. People have spoken and they don’t want it.
I suppose there’ are some situations where markets are broken and that’‘s when the state steps in. But this is not the case with the BBC
media and subscription services are a really healthy market producing better content than ever as a result of competition and choice. They live and die by their quality so what benefit does the BBC provide when they have no market incentive to do well.
There’s absolutely no need for an uncompetitiveorganisation like the Beeb. Once, when TVs had just started to take off and there was one channel, then fine, it’s justified. But we’re nearly 100 years removed from that.
What people have spoken?
Ofcom
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
Why? I don’t watch live tv so why should I pay. They can take me to court if they want but they won’t have a leg to stand on.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
So, what's your suggestion?
Can the BBC and we all watch non-stop films on Netflix? Or should we get all our news from Rupert Murdoch's outlets?
Or do you think the BBC should become a commercial channel like ITV?
THE people, obviously...
M
Last edited by snowman; 13th February 2021 at 17:52.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
No it is not their primary purpose.
The BBC's charter is to Inform, Educate and Entertain
Not supply populist TV whose only purpose is to maximise advertising revenue for shareholders.
I think the licence fee is incredible value.
I think back to working overseas before the internet and the World Service was incredibly valued.
I listen to a lot of Radio 4 and 6 Music, it is not just TV that is paid for by the licence fee.
I agree, if you don't watch live TV you don't need a licence. However when I said (replying to someone else) -
You said -
Which is wrong. It might be paying for the BBC but, like it or not, it's needed to watch live TV.
I get it, some people like it lots don’t. So those that do pay for it, seems fair to me. Fundamental economics!What people have spoken?
Ofcom
Again, great you love it. But don’t expect me to subsidise it!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Netflix original content is almost exclusively series, not films.
That is the "work the loophole" attitude that I consider immoral. I'm not suggesting it's breaking the rule, but I think it is wrong to avoid paying yet consume the product (albeit 1 minute later)
This is what sets the BBC apart and is why they will continue to exist as a PSB whatever funding model is adopted.
It is also a globally recognised, respected and sought after brand promoting Britain across the world.
The most recent Ofcom report indicates that whilst far from perfect they continue to largely meet their public charter despite challenging times.
Public Purpose 1: To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.
Public Purpose 2: To support learning for people of all ages.
Public Purpose 3: To show the most creative, highest quality and most distinctive output and services.
Public Purpose 4: To reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the UK’s nations and regions, and in doing so, support the creative economy across the UK.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse...ual-report.pdf
I'd pay the fee for BBC Bitesize, Six Music and Radio 4 comedies alone, but there's a whole lot more and I'm astonished that there might be nothing there useful or entertaining for someone.
Pan-UK television services
BBC One
BBC Two
BBC Three
BBC Four
CBBC
CBeebies
BBC News
BBC Parliament
Access services at the BBC
Subtitling
Audio Describing
Signing
Network radio
BBC Radio 1
BBC Radio 1Xtra
BBC Radio 2
BBC Radio 3
BBC Radio 4
BBC Radio 4 Extra
BBC Radio 5 live
BBC Radio 5 live sports extra
BBC Radio 6 Music
BBC Asian Network
Around the UK
BBC Scotland
BBC One Scotland
BBC One Wales
BBC One Northern Ireland
BBC Two Wales
BBC Two Northern Ireland
BBC Alba
Radio Scotland
Radio Nan Gaidheal
BBC Radio Wales
Radio Cymru
Radio Cymru 2
Radio Ulster
Radio Foyle
BBC Radio Berkshire
BBC Radio Bristol
BBC Radio Cambridgeshire
BBC Radio Cornwall
BBC Coventry & Warwickshire
BBC Radio Cumbria
BBC Radio Derby
BBC Radio Devon
BBC Essex
BBC Radio Gloucestershire
BBC Radio Guernsey
BBC Hereford & Worcester
BBC Radio Humberside
BBC Radio Jersey
BBC Radio Kent
BBC Radio Lancashire
BBC Radio Leeds
BBC Radio Leicester
BBC Radio Lincolnshire
BBC Radio London
BBC Radio Manchester
BBC Radio Merseyside
BBC Newcastle
BBC Radio Norfolk
BBC Radio Northampton
BBC Radio Nottingham
BBC Radio Oxford
BBC Radio Sheffield
BBC Radio Shropshire
BBC Radio Solent
BBC Somerset
BBC Radio Stoke
BBC Radio Suffolk
BBC Surrey
BBC Sussex
BBC Tees
BBC Three Counties Radio
BBC Wiltshire
BBC WM 95.6
BBC Radio York
Global
BBC World Service
BBC World News
BBC.com
Digital Services
BBC iPlayer
BBC Sounds
BBC News
BBC Sport
BBC Bitesize
BBC Weather
CBBC and CBeebies online
BBC Education
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
To put the boot on the other foot, if you don't want to pay for it how can I make sure you don't watch or listen to the output?
Last edited by Kevin; 13th February 2021 at 18:28.
No one is expecting you to subsidise those of us that enjoy the BBC, don't watch live TV, don't pay.
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...l_films_(2020)
Seriously! Now compare the list of movies you found to the series they made in 2020.
Last edited by Rodder; 13th February 2021 at 18:46.
Wow! I hadn’t realised how bloated it is. Now go through that and decide what free markets would provide.
Ultimately we’re a free market economy, and the BBC isn’t a special case.
I’d be happy just not to pay and let those that do crack on. Perhaps a more fair situation is to sell the BBC. It must be worth billions and billions (content, premises etc). Surely this belongs to anyone who’s been paying for it. Maybe we could end up with a rebate, or the biggest school building project ever. Got to be at least as good as bitesize! Anyway, I’m out
If you’re watching something at the point it is being broadcast live you need a licence or watching something you recorded live
Eg; emmerdale is on at 7pm
If you watch it at 7pm you need a licence
If you record it and watch it a day later - you need a licence
The “delay” is a load of BS but would be interested to see it tested in court
If you watch it on itv hub - you don’t need a licence as that is classed as not live
I'm not arguing with you just pointing out the list of original movies that they made, which appears to challenge what you said.
Ah yes, you're correct. Watch or record as broadcast, need a licence!
Fair enough, I still think there are significantly more box sets than movies.
They do make some rubbish though! And my subscription has creeped up from £4 a month to £12. I’d never argue Netflix are great, to be honest I’ve been wondering if I should keep my subscription. I would always argue in favour of free markets, I know we have our problems but it’s a big part of why the UK has been successful since the 80s. My wife’s Italian and the amount of bureaucracy, nepotism and inefficiency as a result of government interference is awful. I don’t personally like the BBC, but I really hope that if I did, I could look at it objectively and realise it isn’t a special case. Let it live and die on its own merit. If it really is that good people will pay and won’t even change
Last edited by Rodder; 13th February 2021 at 19:05.
I stopped paying my licence around 7 years ago. Never had a knock on the door or anything other than a letter maybe twice in that time requesting me to buy one.
- - - Updated - - -
I stopped paying my licence around 7 years ago. Never had a knock on the door or anything other than a letter maybe twice in that time requesting me to buy one.
Do we really need a TV licence in the 21st century, the answer is no. A streaming service is the way to go. Pay for what you watch.
Tv seems to be all repeats.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Well, obviously you don't: based on the figures you quoted, you should stay lots of people like it, some don't.
The thing is, we probably all agree that the licence fee needs to be reformed. I have no idea as to how, but it can certainly be improved and modernised.
I personally believe the Beeb is a public service. But public services funding is not guaranteed (see what happened to the NHS for at least 10 the last 11 years). The licence fee is a little more secured. Is it normal? The answer, for me, is no, but what is not normal is that the NHS and other public services funding is not guaranteed.
Those services you pay for whether you use them, or not. The same should be true for the BBC. Making it a separate "fee" is like putting a red cape in front of a bull to those who refuse to watch it, for whatever reason.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Let’ stay civil. I didn’t quote figures?!? Simply some people don’t like and I don’t think they should pay. I’ve explained why above. To say I don’t get it is a little out of order but there go. You might not agree with me which is fine but I believe I’ve argued my point reasonably.
as i said earlier , put it behind a paywall and encrypt it - then anyone does does not pay cant watch it
the BBC will fight hand and foot to not let the above happen as it knows it will lose a massive amount of income and let see how great people think it is when its costing £400 a year for the ones that want it now.
You did quote Mr Curta's post, which showed a montage of different graphs, one of which said that 87% of adults in the UK consumed BBC content each week. so calling "some" 87% of adults and "lots" the remaining 13% is entirely misleading, hence my quip which I though was quite civil, just picking you up on what you said.
You claim you argued your point reasonably. I would say you are the more extremist of all the debaters and participants in this thread. Which, strangely, doesn't bother me: you are entirely entitled to your opinion. And you are not alone either.
But you are deeply mistaken if you think we live in a free market (fact). You are also making a mistake, and this is my opinion, if you believe that information is just like any other product and should be subject to unregulated market laws.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I find it infuriating that we have to pay this. I feel it should be a choice not a requirement. The BBC in my opinion produce decent news and animal docs and that’s about. I honestly wish they would scrap the lot and see how they survive on a subscription basis. I fear it would soon disappear in its current guise.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
That, in a nutshell, is why I think the licence fee is worth it.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Do you watch iPlayer? Or do any of the things you actually view have any live tv? If somth3n you will need a licence, but if it’s just watching pre recorded tv shows and films on Netflix or Amazon Prime, then no you don’t.
It's just a matter of time...
I don't like the BBC. In my opinion the notion that its news and current affairs is impartial is laughable, but its entertainment content, something that's often overlooked when its duty of responsibility to impartiality is discussed, is arguably worse. That drama with Hugh Laurie as a Tory minister trying to sell off the NHS is a case in point, but pretty much every news quiz features sneering comedians mocking the Tories as well. Even sports coverage on 5 Live has managed to promote anti-capitalist movements. It's turned into something of a campaigning, perhaps even activist broadcaster. Generally I don't approve of the agenda it promotes and I don't trust it as a news source.
That said - it's great that it exists for people who like it, but I think they should be paying for it out of their own pocket. Even without taking its obvious political / cultural biases into consideration, it's an an anachronistic way to fund a media outlet now.
I agree there is a lot available, and a lot to pay for. There’s also probably a lot of value if you use the services, but being Non-UK, I don’t even listen to the radio stations - But the majority of the above listed services do not require a TV licence any way.
It's just a matter of time...
Clearly we’re a mixed market. We strive for free markets where possible as classic economic theory and research recognises them as the most efficient. Do you think we’re closer to socialism?
I really don’t get how your comment on regulating information has anything to do with a license fee. I get information from the TV, the internet, Twitter, my wife, my children, my neighbour, from book etc. Anyway, surely OFCOM regulates most traditional media regardless of the license fee.
Should I comment on being called extreme for not wanting to pay license fee? Probably not.
Posting Permissions
