[moonkatt]

(Original post by internetguru)
Libraries aren't necessary either.

What?

[talon1579]

(Original post by FrogInABog)
I voted disagree, but on reflection, I'm not so sure...

On the one hand, the BBC provides excellent quality with no adverts and (usually) impartial broadcasting.

On the other, if I didn't use the BBC, but was forced to pay the TV License all the same (if I just watched ITV, Channel 4 etc.), I guess I would see that as unfair.

Having said that, I can't imagine never using the BBC, and I think £140 a year is pretty good value for what it produces, so I'm sticking to my original opinion!

The license fee doesn't just go to the BBC, a small portion goes to other channels - that's why our advert breaks are so short. Remove the license fee and we'd end up like US tv with frequent long ad breaks. Have you ever been there? For a 20 min sitcom, you'll get 5 mins, and advert break, 10 mins, a a break, then the last 5 mins, then another break before the next programme. And each break is a full 5 mins rather than the 1-3 you get there. It's painful to watch.

[AidanLunn]

(Original post by GenerationX)
Currently I am watching the BBC's live feed of the Bahrain Grand Prix something that the British public can not watch on the TV. However it is being streamed via Bell in Canada with loads of adverts, so the British Tax Payer pays for a live broadcast that a foreign broadcaster can earn money off through advertising but the British licence fee payer will not see until the highlights at 5pm approx.

The BBC stopped being purely public broadcast a long time ago and its about time it admits it is a commercial organisation that affects the commercial market of the industry it belongs to.

How is it a BBC feed if it has loads of adverts? It's either a BBC Worldwide feed or it is a clean feed from the OB supplier (could be SBS, Red Bee etc), for neither of which the BBC are to blame.

BBC Worldwide, is a *separate* commercial organisation acting as a sales agent for the BBC.

The BBC didn't put in a high enough bid compared to Sky's for the F1 this weekend. Seems quite fair, to me. But they can still have highlights, so they don't exactly lose out.

And I ask again, how exactly does it "affect" the commercial TV industry? The BBC, ITV, C4 and 5 have soaps. The commercial broadcasters actually pay more than the BBC and can buy ludicrous rights such as football, the grand national and formula one. Come on, how is it "affecting" the commercial broadcasters?

[AidanLunn]

(Original post by talon1579)
The license fee doesn't just go to the BBC, a small portion goes to other channels - that's why our advert breaks are so short. Remove the license fee and we'd end up like US tv with frequent long ad breaks. Have you ever been there? For a 20 min sitcom, you'll get 5 mins, and advert break, 10 mins, a a break, then the last 5 mins, then another break before the next programme. And each break is a full 5 mins rather than the 1-3 you get there. It's painful to watch.

The only broadcaster in the fullest sense of the word it goes to is the BBC, however, transmitter owners such as NTL, Arqiva etc claim repair charges from the government, the cost of which is extracted from the money earnt by the TVL.

C4 gets government subsidy, but not from the TVL.

[adamski92]

wait wait wait, so many people have said something along the lines of 'i only like (insert programme here) so why should i pay for the rest of it". It's a National broadcaster, if you want a TV channel purely to broadcast your two Favourite programs and then complain about its other scheduled programmes, i think that speaks more about you then the licence fee.

The licence fee funds, all the BBC TV programming, radio, news-broadcasting and journalism, world service etc for £140 a year, (£12 a month). THe content is for the entire demographic of the country!

[internetguru]

(Original post by AidanLunn)
*spits coffee everywhere*

You really, really think that a public archive of paper-based learning is something we could do without?

You owe me a new keyboard, by the way.

It is all on the internet so we don't need them, time to move on with the times.

[moonkatt]

(Original post by internetguru)
It is all on the internet so we don't need them, time to move on with the times.

Because everyone has access to the internet don't they?

You best give Birmingham City Council a call and tell them they're wasting £188 million then.

[internetguru]

(Original post by moonkatt)
Because everyone has access to the internet don't they?

You best give Birmingham City Council a call and tell them they're wasting £188 million then.

I can't think of a single person I know who doesn't have internet access.

[GenerationX]

(Original post by AidanLunn)
How is it a BBC feed if it has loads of adverts? It's either a BBC Worldwide feed or it is a clean feed from the OB supplier (could be SBS, Red Bee etc), for neither of which the BBC are to blame.

BBC Worldwide, is a *separate* commercial organisation acting as a sales agent for the BBC.

The BBC didn't put in a high enough bid compared to Sky's for the F1 this weekend. Seems quite fair, to me. But they can still have highlights, so they don't exactly lose out.

And I ask again, how exactly does it "affect" the commercial TV industry? The BBC, ITV, C4 and 5 have soaps. The commercial broadcasters actually pay more than the BBC and can buy ludicrous rights such as football, the grand national and formula one. Come on, how is it "affecting" the commercial broadcasters?

Because its the BBC presenters and cameramen creating the broadcast and shows that even though the UK gets the highlights when Sky does it live the BBC is still paying for the show to be broadcast live instead of just buying highlights from Sky and laying there own commentary over the top. No real saving so why not broadcast it live. I think you will find the deal was more about the BBC having conflicting sporting events such as the London Marathon today which was more of the driver than just Sky paying more for this weekends rights, the BBC already had a multiyear contract with FOM and th Ecclestone empire before negotiating this deal with Sky. This feed is probably sold to Bell Canada who then run adverts during the stream. Well obviously the BBC is involved in commercial activities if it is selling the broadcast, it affects the market by how much it is willing to pay presenters so they can get the popular ones to make a sellable product. ITV has argued in the past that its the BBC that pushes prices up because it has an unfair advantage with the licence feee backing.

There is some good broadcasting the BBC does but its time it went fully commercial and scaled down to a level of organisation that couold support itself commercially. It would make a profit its just like it its addicted to the subsidy and afraid it wouldn't survive if it had to give it up.

Soaps and that rubbish is car crash television putting those forward as a reason to keep the BBC licence fee is not a positive one.

[Kiss]

Just a random question I have:

Say I wanted a tv for a flat but only to play the xbox/wii or watch DVDs, would I have to pay for a tv license??

[A Mysterious Lord]

(Original post by Kiss)
Just a random question I have:

Say I wanted a tv for a flat but only to play the xbox/wii or watch DVDs, would I have to pay for a tv license??

Nope. They will pester you though.

[Kiss]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
Nope. They will pester you though.

As in they'll want me to get one but I'm not legally obliged?

[A Mysterious Lord]

(Original post by Kiss)
As in they'll want me to get one but I'm not legally obliged?

Correct. You're under no obligation to tell them you don't need one, regardless of what they say as it's up to them to prove you do, not for you to prove you don't.

[mikeyd85]

Agree. Since getting SKY I've barely touched the BBC. This is entirely their fault for losing F1.

[Kiss]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
Correct. You're under no obligation to tell them you don't need one, regardless of what they say as it's up to them to prove you do, not for you to prove you don't.

Ahh okay, cheers.

[AidanLunn]

(Original post by GenerationX)
Because its the BBC presenters and cameramen creating the broadcast and shows that even though the UK gets the highlights when Sky does it live the BBC is still paying for the show to be broadcast live instead of just buying highlights from Sky and laying there own commentary over the top.

But the presenters are on the dirty feed, which is not what I'm talking about, which is the clean feed.

The cameramen are employed by the company that is contracted out to provide the staff and equipment.

I can tell you've never worked in making a programme before.

(Original post by GenerationX)
No real saving so why not broadcast it live. I think you will find the deal was more about the BBC having conflicting sporting events such as the London Marathon today which was more of the driver than just Sky paying more for this weekends rights, the BBC already had a multiyear contract with FOM and th Ecclestone empire before negotiating this deal with Sky. This feed is probably sold to Bell Canada who then run adverts during the stream. Well obviously the BBC is involved in commercial activities if it is selling the broadcast, it affects the market by how much it is willing to pay presenters so they can get the popular ones to make a sellable product. ITV has argued in the past that its the BBC that pushes prices up because it has an unfair advantage with the licence feee backing.

1) Because they didn't put in a high enough bid, so they won't show the thing whole - seems fair enough. Can't afford? Go without. Again, if you think there's "no real saving", I can tell you've not worked in the TV industry.

2) The BBC isn't selling the broadcast. BBC Worldwide, which, as I will make clear again, since you ignored it before, is a *PRIVATE* company operating on behalf of the BBC. BBC Worldwide, or whoever else these TV companies, whether foreign or here, contract out are the companies involved in commercial activities, not the BBC. the BBC's Royal Charter only applies to the UK anyway, so it can do whatever it wants abroad, without fear of reprisal or punishment.

3) Actually, no. The salaries seem high to you, but trust me, they are nowhere near what the commercial broadcasters pay them. Jonny Ross's contract included the pay for all of the staff, studio hire, equipment, bills, rights, celebrity appearances etc of his own production company's programmes. On ITV, he is paid far more, using ITV's own production facilities in either Leeds, Manchester or London.

4) If there is an unfair backing, then why do the BBC and ITV make soaps, documentaries, news, daytime crap etc? Strange how before the explosion of satellite channels 15-25 years ago, it was a network of 17 companies each making such profit that the Governments of the day had to impose a 90% income tax on them. It could afford to make quality TV matching that of the BBC.

ITV blaming the BBC for *their own* failure is both lazy and evasive of blame - if ITV can no longer attract the same numbers of viewers, advertisers and profit today as one company than they did 25 years ago as 17 different companies, then that is the fault of the ever-growing commercial sector. But ITV can't bear to admit they're wrong and that their economic model has destroyed them - bean counters at the tops of companies like ITV despise admitting they're wrong.

This is ITV's own fault for not bettering themselves soon enough. You don't compete, then you lose money and eventually die. Simple. That's like (though neither of them are publicly-owned) Asda blaming Sainsbury's for Sainsbury's losing customers. If you don't compete, then out you go on your arse. Just ask Woolworths.

ITV have not competed with the BBC to provide the complete range of services and programmes offered by the BBC, so they lose out. If you fail then you lose.

ITV have failed in the range of services and programmes war against the BBC, as have most of the rest of the commercial sector. Simple.

(Original post by GenerationX)
Soaps and that rubbish is car crash television putting those forward as a reason to keep the BBC licence fee is not a positive one.

What about hose who like those programmes, why shouldn't they have their wishes catered for on a broadcaster that they have to pay for?

And it's a "TV licence", not a "BBC licence" for the simple reason that some of the money is doled out by the government to organisations and projects totally unrelated to the BBC. The rollout of rural broadband, for example.

[GenerationX]

(Original post by AidanLunn)
But the presenters are on the dirty feed, which is not what I'm talking about, which is the clean feed.

The cameramen are employed by the company that is contracted out to provide the staff and equipment.

I can tell you've never worked in making a programme before.



1) Because they didn't put in a high enough bid, so they won't show the thing whole - seems fair enough. Can't afford? Go without. Again, if you think there's "no real saving", I can tell you've not worked in the TV industry.

2) The BBC isn't selling the broadcast. BBC Worldwide, which, as I will make clear again, since you ignored it before, is a *PRIVATE* company operating on behalf of the BBC. BBC Worldwide, or whoever else these TV companies, whether foreign or here, contract out are the companies involved in commercial activities, not the BBC. the BBC's Royal Charter only applies to the UK anyway, so it can do whatever it wants abroad, without fear of reprisal or punishment.

3) Actually, no. The salaries seem high to you, but trust me, they are nowhere near what the commercial broadcasters pay them. Jonny Ross's contract included the pay for all of the staff, studio hire, equipment, bills, rights, celebrity appearances etc of his own production company's programmes. On ITV, he is paid far more, using ITV's own production facilities in either Leeds, Manchester or London.

4) If there is an unfair backing, then why do the BBC and ITV make soaps, documentaries, news, daytime crap etc? Strange how before the explosion of satellite channels 15-25 years ago, it was a network of 17 companies each making such profit that the Governments of the day had to impose a 90% income tax on them. It could afford to make quality TV matching that of the BBC.

ITV blaming the BBC for *their own* failure is both lazy and evasive of blame - if ITV can no longer attract the same numbers of viewers, advertisers and profit today as one company than they did 25 years ago as 17 different companies, then that is the fault of the ever-growing commercial sector. But ITV can't bear to admit they're wrong and that their economic model has destroyed them - bean counters at the tops of companies like ITV despise admitting they're wrong.

This is ITV's own fault for not bettering themselves soon enough. You don't compete, then you lose money and eventually die. Simple. That's like (though neither of them are publicly-owned) Asda blaming Sainsbury's for Sainsbury's losing customers. If you don't compete, then out you go on your arse. Just ask Woolworths.

ITV have not competed with the BBC to provide the complete range of services and programmes offered by the BBC, so they lose out. If you fail then you lose.

ITV have failed in the range of services and programmes war against the BBC, as have most of the rest of the commercial sector. Simple.



What about hose who like those programmes, why shouldn't they have their wishes catered for on a broadcaster that they have to pay for?

And it's a "TV licence", not a "BBC licence" for the simple reason that some of the money is doled out by the government to organisations and projects totally unrelated to the BBC. The rollout of rural broadband, for example.

Its taken two months to come back with this. I don't need to have experience in making programmes to have an opinion on the Beeb Ive been paying the Licence fee for 30 odd years. Lets keep it simple you like aunty beeb I think she is a subsidy junkie. If people like your way they can keep paying hte licence fee and if they prefer not to they can get all their media on demand via the net and opt out of paying the licence fee as I now do.

[rmpr97]

Oxymoron: BBC & Impartial.