Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Petition: End the TV License

Announcements Posted on
Complete this short survey for a chance to win an iPad mini! 22-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Okay how about we have two options available the free and premium options. Premiums pay the equivalent of the license fee and get no adverts whist free people get adverts.
    that is actually a good idea.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm glad there are so many people here who seem happy to have the strong arm of the state invoked on the grounds that you don't like advertising. It demonstrates a optimistic veneer of child-like glee to think that such things are the the responsibility of the government, and it would be easy, in today's cynical world, for key issues like not having adverts during Eastenders to not get the governmental representation that they quite clearly deserve.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    It is quite telling that all those references are american. Sorry, please tell me how successful the British movie industry has been on the open market?
    Canal+ is not American, it never will be American! Never!

    Not very successful, it is a failure even within the UK :rofl:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    HBO, Showtime and Canal+ (I'm not including Nine, because it's not only **** but also on the verge of financial collapse) are all subscription broadcasters you have to pay to watch.
    And the BBC is what? free? it is not free it is a forced subscription service... at least with HBO, Showtime and Canal+ you can chose whether to be a subscriber or not. Also Canal+ is not all premium paid programming
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Addzter)
    Couldn't disagree with this more. The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world precisely because it's publicly funded.

    The license fee prevents the BBC from being subjected to the whims of the market, which in turn allows it to take risks with the kinds of TV shows it puts on the air. If the BBC take a risk with a show and it turns out to be unpopular, they learn from their mistake and move on. If a commercial broadcaster like ITV takes a risk with a show and it turns out to be unpopular, they stand to lose a lot of money in ad revenues. Which do you think is more likely to produce riskier content? The BBC also produces a lot of important content that probably make a loss if they put ads on it, like BBC Parliament.

    I don't think it's a coincidence that some of the best TV shows in the world come from broadcasters with secure revenue streams (i.e. not primarily ad-funded) such the BBC and some of the premium subscription cable channels in the United States like HBO.
    There's no such thing as "best" TV shows. Hence, your argument falls to pieces. Why should the state fund what you consider to be good TV? Who cares if BBC Parliament is gone? If you believe that we somehow have a right to know what the Parliament is up to then we can transfer the viewing from BBC to the internet if the BBC don't want to fund it. It's not like more than 0.1% of the public watch it.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    There's no such thing as "best" TV shows. Hence, your argument falls to pieces. Why should the state fund what you consider to be good TV?
    I don't understand why my argument "falls to pieces" because I offered up my opinion; it wasn't exactly the crux of what I was trying to say.

    Who cares if BBC Parliament is gone? If you believe that we somehow have a right to know what the Parliament is up to then we can transfer the viewing from BBC to the internet if the BBC don't want to fund it. It's not like more than 0.1% of the public watch it.
    OK, so now we judge the worth of television shows on how many people watch them. Maybe we should stop signing shows for deaf people too, because after all, it's not like more than 0.1% of the public watch it. The point is that these are public services that the BBC would have no obligation to offer if it was run for profit.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Addzter)
    I don't understand why my argument "falls to pieces" because I offered up my opinion; it wasn't exactly the crux of what I was trying to say.

    OK, so now we judge the worth of television shows on how many people watch them. Maybe we should stop signing shows for deaf people too, because after all, it's not like more than 0.1% of the public watch it. The point is that these are public services that the BBC would have no obligation to offer if it was run for profit.
    Why should the state fund your view of entertainment when you agree that it's merely a subjective preference?

    Pretty much, market value. Yes, if there isn't a demand for deaf people's programs it shouldn't be funded. Is it sad that they're excluded? No doubt. But, how far do we go with the idea of including those with disabilities? Mandatory wheelchair accessibility in all buildings except homes? Deaf translator for all programming? Mandatory conversion of all books to make it blind-friendly?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kopite493)
    you mean

    sopranos
    the wire
    24
    game of thrones
    entourage

    i could go on

    but well im sure you get my point
    Yes, you've made the point very well, they're all shockingly bad aren't they! It's also nice when you get to see the adverts, isn't it?
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Why should the state fund your view of entertainment when you agree that it's merely a subjective preference?

    Pretty much, market value. Yes, if there isn't a demand for deaf people's programs it shouldn't be funded. Is it sad that they're excluded? No doubt. But, how far do we go with the idea of including those with disabilities? Mandatory wheelchair accessibility in all buildings except homes? Deaf translator for all programming? Mandatory conversion of all books to make it blind-friendly?
    I... didn't say it should. :dunce: I simply stated that I was of the opinion that broadcasters who don't have to rely on advertising make better programs. Which is not demanding that the state fund the kind of TV I like. And the BBC is not really "state funded" anyway, as most of its money comes from the optional license fee.

    Exactly, if it was left up to the free market, these services would likely not exist. But the BBC is a public service broadcaster with a remit to provide services catering to as broad a range of people as possible, and it can do that because of the TV license fee which frees it from being subject to the whims of the market.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Addzter)
    I... didn't say it should. :dunce: I simply stated that I was of the opinion that broadcasters who don't have to rely on advertising make better programs. Which is not demanding that the state fund the kind of TV I like. And the BBC is not really "state funded" anyway, as most of its money comes from the optional license fee.

    Exactly, if it was left up to the free market, these services would likely not exist. But the BBC is a public service broadcaster with a remit to provide services catering to as broad a range of people as possible, and it can do that because of the TV license fee which frees it from being subject to the whims of the market.
    The free market you know nothing about works on supply and demand. If there was demand the free market would produce a supply and find a way to make some money out of it and make it work.

    Some companies and especially you find in the Arab Gulf states are very wealthy they are happy to not have as much profit margins to run a necessary service for the reputation of there name and for prestige. In nations without public sectors or minimal ones, you find that TV non state funded news channels still exist and documentaries and so on and are sold at a small price, cheaper than a TV licence per year.

    Al Jazeera is privately funded in all nations outside of Qatar where it's international HQ is. Whom only pay a small state incentive payment to ensure the news corporation stays in Qatar as it is in the national interest.

    Frankly your arguments assume false fears and are myths. The world without state-funding works just fine thanks. I would rather be living in Kuwait than here right now.

    The opinion of TV quality that does not rely on adverts makes better programs is the worst thing I ever heard. The BBC produces some of the most trash dramas I have ever seen. Meanwhile, we get to enjoy Game of Thrones thanks to bigger budgets in stunning super HD with an array of actually famous quality actors. If TV was never privatised I would worry what low budgeted crap we would have to watch. Thank mother nature and luck that TV was not kept from improving under the private sector. Imagine having to watch another terrible BBC Drama, with terrible cheap actors and non-graphically enhanced viewing pleasure. Thank you Sky and private investment for Game of Thrones... it pisses on the BBC and what it could ever do gazillion times over.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How about just encrypt all BBC content and make it a subscription-based service, with the equivalent of the current licence fee?

    Then you could choose whether or not to pay for BBC content, with the legal option to "opt out" and stick to channels with advertising instead - rather than the current system of a £1000 fine (and getting hunted down like a dog) for watching non-BBC channels without a licence. For online content (e.g. BBC iPlayer) you could enter a provided BBC username and password obtained with the subscription.

    The only downside to this is that the fee may need to increase to cover those who would skip BBC content. But on the other hand, it would put an end to the current draconian system, which Americans regard as something out of a police state.


    As for the other proposed suggestion - ads on BBC - no thanks!
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by misterxninja)
    Frankly your arguments assume false fears and are myths. The world without state-funding works just fine thanks. I would rather be living in Kuwait than here right now.
    I'll pay for your plane ticket if you like. :bigsmile:

    The opinion of TV quality that does not rely on adverts makes better programs is the worst thing I ever heard. The BBC produces some of the most trash dramas I have ever seen. Meanwhile, we get to enjoy Game of Thrones thanks to bigger budgets in stunning super HD with an array of actually famous quality actors. If TV was never privatised I would worry what low budgeted crap we would have to watch. Thank mother nature and luck that TV was not kept from improving under the private sector. Imagine having to watch another terrible BBC Drama, with terrible cheap actors and non-graphically enhanced viewing pleasure. Thank you Sky and private investment for Game of Thrones... it pisses on the BBC and what it could ever do gazillion times over.
    Neither Sky (who air GoT) or HBO (who produce it) "rely on adverts" so try again.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No BBC 6 music, probably no Jools Holland's show, so any musician with originality would have no chance of a national hearing. Screaming Lord Sutch would have never had a musical career, no White Stripes, Undertones, many others who have brought pleasure to many.

    We'd end up with the rubbish sponsored by Simon Cowell as music.

    No-one like Monty Python would ever get on TV either.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Addzter)
    I'll pay for your plane ticket if you like. :bigsmile:



    Neither Sky (who air GoT) or HBO (who produce it) "rely on adverts" so try again.
    They don't solely rely on adverts no I never said that but they do rely on adverts to for revenue, so still do in big part. So adverts are a contributory factor to good quality and advancement of TV and entertainment, since the Sky Atlantic channel gets advertising money and also HBO is a private company. So still you are wrong. We don't need public funded TV, where there is demand a supply will follow. The private sector wins again is more efficient produces better TV with better quality acting, technology and script writing.

    So again you are on your ass at a loss and continue to be shown for the greenhorn you are. What background in politics do you actually have, do you have any relevant education you seem a bit dim with it all?
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    No BBC 6 music, probably no Jools Holland's show, so any musician with originality would have no chance of a national hearing. Screaming Lord Sutch would have never had a musical career, no White Stripes, Undertones, many others who have brought pleasure to many.

    We'd end up with the rubbish sponsored by Simon Cowell as music.

    No-one like Monty Python would ever get on TV either.
    Niche markets exist. Where there was a demand there would be a supply. It is a myth that you would only get Simon Cowell. Kerrang private company run a radio station, a tv station and a magazine all with alternative forms of music and culture and lifestyle and attitude to what Simon Cowell represents. It is a competing marketplace. Q like Kerrang catering for a whole different approach would of meant that you still had the White Stripes and the Undertones. Private funded...
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    As Internetguru well knows from the budget discussion we are indeed taking action on this issue.

    The government will take the comments from this thread into account and note Internetguru's contribution as he did indeed propose the idea several months ago but you shall have to wait a few weeks for the budget.

    Internetguru is of course perfectly able to create a bill in the meantime and have somebody second it if he likes.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    As Internetguru well knows from the budget discussion we are indeed taking action on this issue.

    The government will take the comments from this thread into account and note Internetguru's contribution as he did indeed propose the idea several months ago but you shall have to wait a few weeks for the budget.

    Internetguru is of course perfectly able to create a bill in the meantime and have somebody second it if he likes.
    It sounds like Toronto wants to handle it by all the accusations of bills theft he made.

    (Original post by toronto353)
    .
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Being fair you have both contributed so i am quite content to add a note acknowledging your contribution when we reveal the specifics in the budget.

    If you would like to preempt us on your own then you can of course release a bill of your own with a seconder.
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    It sounds like Toronto wants to handle it by all the accusations of bills theft he made.
    I simply noted that I had a presented a Bill in the Government forum before you left and that this was probably based on that in many ways given that the discussion and Bill there related to what you have put in your petition.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Yes, because ITV have never made anything decent...
    In ITV's current state, you're absoloutly correct.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Nay to the proposal, especially due to the seemingly short-term timescale of implementation.

    The BBC offers a quality service of which all costs would not be able to be funded by scrapping the licence fee.

    Additionally, the overall quality of all of television would likely also be reduced, to the determent of consumers. Advertising would be spread over many more channels, thereby reducing revenue of all other channels due to the increased competition.

    The licence fee of the BBC should stay in place, however plans to reduce the actual fee would be preferential.
Updated: June 29, 2012
New on TSR

TSR Freshers' blogs 2014

Read what TSR's freshers have to say as they head off to uni

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.