UK TV License

[sayonara]

I used to think the TV license in the UK was a liberty, purely because it essentially removes the right to self-determination vis á vis your choice of TV channels.

Then when the BBC decided to add the cost of their Sky / cable channels to the license fee, I was a bit mad. But I got over it as they produce some great programmes that I will watch.

But now they've gone too far.

It turns out the BBC spend £100 Million (~150M €) on their websites every year. Yes, they're nice sites with good resources, and they're supported well. But £100,000,000? I don't think they're getting their money's worth, and neither are we.

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of fee payers actually use the BBC websites.

Rant rant rant.


For anyone who doesn't know what I'm waffling on about, the BBC in the United Kingdom charges about £115 per year for a television license, which 'allows' one to legally own a television set. This is how they make their money, rather than advertising with 20 minutes of commercials an hour (unlike Sky who do both, the cheeky ****s).

A large number of people feel that being prosecuted ("You're breaking the law if you don't own a license") for not owning a license is a tad unfair if you do not use any of the BBC's services.

[alastair18]

Are you sure? Link please.

[Sh0cK]

I use the website frequently. It is a massive resource and an excellent source of information and one of the fastest sites on the net to get thenews going.

you must know of what PA goes through with its massive laod and need for many servers

IMAGINE being the biggest site in europe? how many servers you would need, how much bandwidth would you need? how many inputers would you need and formal web designers and engineers.

thats why it costs so much and it is value for money if you search into it because i can almost garuntee what you need will be on there.

[sayonara]

alastair: It was in the paper - a quick flirtation with Google should reveal it somewhere.


Sh0ck - I use their websites too, and I have a jolly good idea how much it all costs to run. But my point was that they are blanket-charging the population with no regard for the consumer rights of those who do not use the service.

Plus I did say "rant rant rant".

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally posted by sayonara
rant rant rant

i do not own a television license
i do not own a television
i do not watch television as it is all utter ****e

I shall not be changing this opinion anytime soon.

[sayonara]

\o/ NEWSBOT3 \o/

Originally posted by NEWSBOT3
i do not own a television

Did it get stolen?

i do not watch television as it is all utter ****e
I shall not be changing this opinion anytime soon.

It is, and don't.

[Sh0cK]

anyway the bbc makes lots of its money by selling its programs and technologies to other networks and countries and selling merchandise such as dvds to cunsumers.

[poshphil]

have u seen the amount of flash games they have on the bbc website. and theyre done with decent (for flash) graphics and stuff.

i bet this is what most the money goes on. paying for the flash games.

[sayonara]

The only one I played was 'gaylords', when the link popped up here.

Twas crappy.

[Deffeh]

gaylords is great


shooting stars golf is great though too

better than the ****e program anyway

[wakey]

tbh I think if the Licence fee was ever scrapped we would all soon be wanting it back because the BBC are under such strict rules on what they have to broadcast due to the fee that they help set a standard of decency and quality for all channels to follow.Its this which prevents us having scheduals full of the cheap ITV style shows like "Britians Worst ..." and "Britains Brainest ..." or infomercials all over the place like places like the states have (and before you throw things like but most of teh good shows on UK tv is from the states so how can there TV be bad, all we see of the states tv are the cream of the crop. It is not a fair reflection of the overall quality).

Now the aim of these stories is to get public opionion on the side of the commercial stations so that BBC losses the money which allows it to produce the quality shows that it does and instead turn it into a commercial staion where the aim changes from producing quality to produce the chepest program for the biggest possible audience so we will see an influx of cheap and poor imports and cheap low quality and dumb TV like the "Britains Worst ..." shows.

Just remember while 100 million sounds like alot it really isnt much when you consider the amount that the BBC spends in total on its programs and from it we get a quality website that wins award after award and which compliments its programs greatly. In many cases (especially the history, natural history ect shows) it even allows you to find out more information about the subject that wasnt possible and not needed by most viewers in the actual program. It could be worse and you could be paying for the shambles that is the ITV website (in fact wait a mo we do pay for that when we buy anything ITV advertises)

[sayonara]

Originally posted by wakey
tbh I think if the Licence fee was ever scrapped we would all soon be wanting it back because the BBC are under such strict rules on what they have to broadcast due to the fee that they help set a standard of decency and quality for all channels to follow.Its this which prevents us having scheduals full of the cheap ITV style shows like "Britians Worst ..." and "Britains Brainest ..." or infomercials all over the place like places like the states have (and before you throw things like but most of teh good shows on UK tv is from the states so how can there TV be bad, all we see of the states tv are the cream of the crop. It is not a fair reflection of the overall quality).

Yes - that's the theory. But I challenge you to watch "My Family", which enjoys a primetime slot on BBC1, without vomitting blood from your ears.

Or perhaps a crackly, black and white Steptoe and Son repeat? Maybe Eastenders - what a tremendous piece of televisual literature that is.

If you miss those there will be reams of gardening and kitchen programs on every night, so there is always something to see.

The BBC aren't trying anymore.

Just remember while 100 million sounds like alot it really isnt much when you consider the amount that the BBC spends in total on its programs and from it we get a quality website that wins award after award and which compliments its programs greatly. In many cases (especially the history, natural history ect shows) it even allows you to find out more information about the subject that wasnt possible and not needed by most viewers in the actual program. It could be worse and you could be paying for the shambles that is the ITV website (in fact wait a mo we do pay for that when we buy anything ITV advertises)

Again, this is all true.

Again, you're missing the point.

It doesn't matter how good the service is or how many awards the website wins to someone who does not use that service.
My point with this thread is that the BBC have moved the bill for their web services to the fee-payers without declaration or consultation, forcing the charge onto people who have no choice but to pay it regardless of whether or not they use the service they're being charged for.

If you stayed at a hotel and don't use the minibar, you'd pay the bill but explode if you got charged for 5 bottles of vodka.

[Nusselt]

Its a £100 a year, for that you get the best news wesite imho (BBC>CNN) and good programmes.

And no fooking ads. And you get
http://home.wanadoo.nl/kraan90/

whatmorecouldyawant?

[LHC]

The BBC may be ****e. But it's still the best damn television network in the world. Ahhhh, no adverts. Lovely.

[Smugs]

I personaly think the BBC puts on the biggiest pieces of crap on a round. Role on C5 and the friday night porn

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Smugs
I personaly think the BBC puts on the biggiest pieces of crap on a round. Role on C5 and the friday night porn

jesus christ you still watch that crap after having internet access?????

[CjC]

Currently the BBC are being scrutinized over their spending on Interactive, BBCi internet services.

Thats where our money is being spent people.

Name the last time the beeb spent any money on any TV "special"????

[MeridianStar]

What pisses me off is that although I'll have a TV in my new flat, and I won't use it to watch terrestrial television, just to play DVD's, chances are I'll probably have to pay that fee for channels that I won't even access. Because it's the right thing to do, apparently. Bah.

[Nodrog]

This is why broadcasting institutions should not be publically funded.

The television license fee is a national disgrace, and I dont understand what logic anyone could use to support it.

[NEWSBOT3]

The bbc know full well that their website is used by a majority of people not even in the UK. They want to spend money, fine, but people not in the uk are not paying tv license fees...

[sayonara]

Originally posted by Nodrog
This is why broadcasting institutions should not be publically funded.

The television license fee is a national disgrace, and I dont understand what logic anyone could use to support it.

Oh my good lord God and all the heavenly host of angels above.

Nodrog agrees with me.


Is this the seventh sign? Someone check outside to see if the stars are going out!



(disclaimer - no, not religious)

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by wakey
tbh I think if the Licence fee was ever scrapped we would all soon be wanting it back because the BBC are under such strict rules on what they have to broadcast due to the fee that they help set a standard of decency and quality for all channels to follow.Its this which prevents us having scheduals full of the cheap ITV style shows like "Britians Worst ..." and "Britains Brainest ..." or infomercials all over the place like places like the states have (and before you throw things like but most of teh good shows on UK tv is from the states so how can there TV be bad, all we see of the states tv are the cream of the crop. It is not a fair reflection of the overall quality).

The BBC has no incentive whatsoever to produce quality programs. No matter what output they produce, the same people will still be paying the same amount for the service. Whether you think the BBC is the best thing ever, or the worst thing, it doesnt matter - you do not have the option of not paying for it. When a channel is funded by either a subscription fee or commercials, it is directly answerable to the viewers - if its output is substandard, it will not get high rating figures, and therefore it will not get high advertising revenue. A government enforced monopoly provides no scope or incentive to maintain high standards as a response to the threat of competition - no competition is allowed to exist.

None of the above is even remotely relevant however - the quality of the programming isnt the issue. The point is that if I want to play Playstation games, I am forced to pay 110 pounds to a company whose products I have no intention of using. If I want to choose to pay money for Sky television, I am forced to also buy products from the BBC under threat of fines/jail sentences. Where is the logic in this? The government is using physical force to make you buy a product - there is a name for this, and that name is 'extortion'. This would not be tolerated in the private sector in any other industry under the sun - why is an exception made for the broadcasting industry?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by sayonara
For anyone who doesn't know what I'm waffling on about, the BBC in the United Kingdom charges about £115 per year for a television license, which 'allows' one to legally own a television set.

Question: Do you actually need a license to own a television set, or just to receive/use their signal? If you just used your television to play Nintendo games or watch recorded movies, would you still be required to have a license?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Tactitus
If you just used your television to play Nintendo games or watch recorded movies, would you still be required to have a license?

Yes.

[MrMighty]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Question: Do you actually need a license to own a television set, or just to receive/use their signal? If you just used your television to play Nintendo games or watch recorded movies, would you still be required to have a license?

No, but you need to prove that you can't receive the signal, which is nigh-on impossible.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by MrMighty
No, but you need to prove that you can't receive the signal, which is nigh-on impossible.

Could you encase your external TV ariel in lead piping?

[inf]

Originally posted by Nodrog
The BBC has no incentive whatsoever to produce quality programs. No matter what output they produce, the same people will still be paying the same amount for the service. Whether you think the BBC is the best thing ever, or the worst thing, it doesnt matter - you do not have the option of not paying for it. When a channel is funded by either a subscription fee or commercials, it is directly answerable to the viewers - if its output is substandard, it will not get high rating figures, and therefore it will not get high advertising revenue. A government enforced monopoly provides no scope or incentive to maintain high standards as a response to the threat of competition - no competition is allowed to exist.

None of the above is even remotely relevant however - the quality of the programming isnt the issue. The point is that if I want to play Playstation games, I am forced to pay 110 pounds to a company whose products I have no intention of using. If I want to choose to pay money for Sky television, I am forced to also buy products from the BBC under threat of fines/jail sentences. Where is the logic in this? The government is using physical force to make you buy a product - there is a name for this, and that name is 'extortion'. This would not be tolerated in the private sector in any other industry under the sun - why is an exception made for the broadcasting industry?

It is essentially an indirect tax, that you have to pay even if you don't consume the service.

Taxation in this country is in a disgracefull state, the TV licencing is the least of our problems.

[inf]

Originally posted by MrMighty
No, but you need to prove that you can't receive the signal, which is nigh-on impossible.

Guilty until proven innocent?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by inf
It is essentially an indirect tax, that you have to pay even if you don't consume the service.

Taxation in this country is in a disgracefull state, the TV licencing is the least of our problems.

I lost all faith in UK taxation ever been fixed the first time I heard someone suggest that buying a national lottery ticket should be compulsory.

[inf]

Originally posted by Nodrog
I lost all faith in UK taxation ever been fixed the first time I heard someone suggest that buying a national lottery ticket should be compulsory.

I never lost faith, I never had faith.

[Dante Hicks]

£100m (if this is the case, without a direct source it's difficult to assess) is a lot of money in anyone's language. The BBC's annual income is £3bn (I think), but obviously that would still be 3% which is a fair amount (and apparently more than the cost of physical broadcasting of analogue channels).

The idea of spending that amount on internet services is even more outrageous since most households who use the net heavily would tend to have higher incomes than those who don't, wheras TV ownership is fairly evenly spread. Therefore, the poor (who are legally obliged to pay the fee if they have a TV) are subsiding services for the rich (and non-UK residents). A little unfair to say the least.

The BBC are undoubtedly better than their direct competitors (i.e. ITV) but I still don't support the liscence fee :

1. They haven't produced anything I've enjoyed for ages now. Blackadder and Red Dwarf are timeless classics yes, but what lately?

2. It's unfair. I don't appreciate receiving threats through my door after moving into a place where I don't have an aerial. The ads on TV effectively likening liscence-evaders to hardened criminals are pathetic. Also I don't appreciate my money going on funding pro-bourgeois propaganda.

3. The idea that decent programs can't exist within a commerical environment seems misplaced : Look at Pilger's documentaries or C4's Spaced in this country or Oz and Buffy from the US. Perhaps the BBCs output is on average higher than elsewhere, but civilisation isn't going to collapse as we know it. Perhaps people will turn to the internet more if TV decays. My TV is constantly tuned to Kerrang or MTV2 these days and so the fee seems particularly wasteful for me.

I do think that Nod's "monopolist" analysis is slightly misplaced : State monopolies do have incentives to change their output (improve) but the criteria they use for improvement is warped - generally in the direction of the dominant ideology of the time.

As for no adverts - I watch MPGs/Divx's. My favourite "channel" is #Buffy-Central. What bloody adverts?

[Woof]

The BBC has some excellent services for Broadband users on it's website.
I don't mind my license fee going to pay for the BBC's website, as i use them quite frequently.
But what i resent is my license fee going to pay for the Asian network, and I don’t mean that in a racist sense.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

I do think that Nod's "monopolist" analysis is slightly misplaced : State monopolies do have incentives to change their output (improve) but the criteria they use for improvement is warped - generally in the direction of the dominant ideology of the time.

Compare the quality of BBC programming to that of one of Sky's premier channels (lets take Sky 1 for the sake of argument). It cant even begin to compete in terms of quality. Bear in mind that the BBC is a massive institution, and is running a protection racket that forces the a large part of the British population to pay for it - theres no reason whatsoever why it shouldnt be able to compete with a big sky channel.

The BBC pisses vast sums money down the drain because it has to cater to 'everyone' rather than giving people what they want to watch. This is primarilly because it is free from the threat of competition - there is no chance a commercial channel could afford to do this.. Minority groups should not be getting their programming subsidised by the majority.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Compare the quality of BBC programming to that of one of Sky's premier channels (lets take Sky 1 for the sake of argument).

I think I understand your argument correctly, but I don't accpet your example - are you saying that Sky1's quality is far higher than the BBC's? (If you're not saying this then I apologise, I've obviously misread your post)

Obviously here we're getting very subjective, but if you are, I think you're wrong. The BBC schedule (for say, today) is overall dominated by programming made in the UK - "original" programming if you like. The Sky 1 schedule for today though is pretty much all US imports (aside from what appears to be a Brookside rerun at 3:30am). Imports are generally cheaper than making homegrown TV (especially when you're talking about some of the programs Sky 1 imports) - although obviously there are exceptions like The Simpsons, which is obviously owned by Sky 1's parent company.

Overall, I don't think that the BBC is "better" today (or any other day) than Sky 1, but I do think it's better suited for most people. If you look at Sky 1's schedule for today it's quite heavily stacked in favour of white males between 14 and 35 (Star Trek, SG-1, The Simpsons, etc). These are also the people who probably do have relatively higher purchasing power (or influencing power) - especially when it comes to buying things like Cable/Satellite packages - than others.

Either way, the BBC has another remit other than to provide popular TV. I don't think it's to support minority tastes either(there's been studies done which has found that black tastes are better served by cable) but to increase (or support) the cultural production of the UK. This again, is assigned by the government. Once again, I don't support the mandatory fee, I was merely responding to your comment about the BBC having no incentive to change. They do, it's just merely to respond to the government's latest whim - which is definitely worse.

[Jammers]

I think everyone who pays their license fee should be given a slice of TV time. That way minority groups can pledge there small amount of time to show Indian Music Spectaculars, and the normal people can show decent shows (selected from stuff the BBC already owns), with a certain amount of time set aside for News\other public services regardless of who wants it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Jammers
<snip>

That's not actually a terrible idea, but the problem is that there's no feedback mechanism in place for rating what Indians (or normal people) want. Afaik they base it on ratings which to me is misleading. I watch a lot of stuff on TV that I personally wouldn't wish to fund if I had the direct choice.

[iain50]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
what Indians (or normal people) want.

hmm, surely you dont mean it like that?

[Auro]

At least you guys don't have 5 million hours of Infomercials (I swear I will go insane if they try to sell me that Bowflex or Vitamin shit ever again)

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by MeridianStar
What pisses me off is that although I'll have a TV in my new flat, and I won't use it to watch terrestrial television, just to play DVD's, chances are I'll probably have to pay that fee for channels that I won't even access. Because it's the right thing to do, apparently. Bah.

Solution:-

Buy a DVD player, that DOES not have a TV tuner built into it.

Buy a Monitor to watch the DVD's and not a TV set.

Therefore, you will not be able to recieve TV signals on your equipment, and thus not liable to pay for a licence.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by Jammers
I think everyone who pays their license fee should be given a slice of TV time. That way minority groups can pledge there small amount of time to show Indian Music Spectaculars, and the normal people can show decent shows (selected from stuff the BBC already owns), with a certain amount of time set aside for News\other public services regardless of who wants it.

Which is why the BBC have launched several new channels, (TV and Radio) to aim at specific communities.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

Overall, I don't think that the BBC is "better" today (or any other day) than Sky 1, but I do think it's better suited for most people. If you look at Sky 1's schedule for today it's quite heavily stacked in favour of white males between 14 and 35 (Star Trek, SG-1, The Simpsons, etc). These are also the people who probably do have relatively higher purchasing power (or influencing power) - especially when it comes to buying things like Cable/Satellite packages - than others.

I accept your argument, but just as an aside on the above point.

The people that Sky aim at already have access to the programs, as you stated:- these are the 14-35yr olds who are inclined to purchase the equipment/packages.

Would it not be a more reasonable course for Sky to aim at those that do not?

[inf]

The BBC have special radio channels for black music and culture, and asian music and culture.

If the same was done for white music and culture, it would be labeled racist.

[sayonara]

Originally posted by inf
The BBC have special radio channels for black music and culture, and asian music and culture.

If the same was done for white music and culture, it would be labeled racist.

As well as there being no actual content.

[Mong]

I'm disappointed by the knee-jerk poorly thought out reactions here. None of the arguments are well balanced.

I'm not even going to waste my time explaining why the license fee is an excellent idea. The BBC is the envy of many countries, for good reason!

By the way; the BBC makes most of it's money by other means, not from the fee.

By the way II; other chans receive money from the license fee too, not just the BBC.

I think people underestimate just what great value the fee is. Also you don't take into account the role the BBC plays in promoting the UK overseas.

Like I said, I can't be arsed with a typical GD debate, as it'll just end in me being annoyed with the banality of it's "level" of argument.

M.

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Mong
MONG MONG

what if i say i dont think its a good idea, and that i simply want the option not to pay for it?

Do you still have to pay a TV license if you watch TV through your PC with a TV Card?

[Mong]

Originally posted by Nusselt
what if i say i dont think its a good idea, and that i simply want the option not to pay for it?

Then you can't watch TV

Originally posted by Androme
Do you still have to pay a TV license if you watch TV through your PC with a TV Card?

Yep!

M.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Mong
I'm disappointed by the knee-jerk poorly thought out reactions here. None of the arguments are well balanced.

I'm not even going to waste my time explaining why the license fee is an excellent idea. The BBC is the envy of many countries, for good reason!

By the way; the BBC makes most of it's money by other means, not from the fee.

I think people underestimate just what great value the fee is. Also you don't take into account the role the BBC plays in promoting the UK overseas.

Like I said, I can't be arsed with a typical GD debate, as it'll just end in me being annoyed with the banality of it's "level" of argument.

M.

I dont care how great you think the BBC is - why should I have to pay for it if I dont want it? Thats the fundamental question here.

The fact you want to masturbate over how good something is does not give you the right to force me to pay for the tissues.

[Nodrog]

Let me give you a parallel analogy.

I think Windows 2000 is the best thing ever. Microsoft have done wonders for the computer industry, and have single handedly made it the incredibly phenomenon it is today. This operating system represents the pinnacle of human achievement in the computer field, and it is an objective self-evident fact that is the greatest computer product that will ever be made. Therefore, in the best interests of society, I think its only right to pass a law legally requiring everyone who owns a computer to buy a copy of Windows 2000. Microsoft will be able to use this additional revenue to continue improving their software, and it will allow them to continually build on the exquisite level of service that they provide to you as a user.

You want to use UNIX instead you say? Fine! Once youve bought your copy of Windows 2K, youre free to use whatever operating system you want! Just make sure you buy Win2K first, or we'll lock you in jail. Im sorry, did you say you were only wanting the computer as a server, and had no intention whatsoever of using it as a Desktop PC? Well, youre still going to have to buy a copy of Win2K - even if you dont use it, just think - youre contributing to the advancement of computing all over the world!

But youre only wanting to use the case as a doorstop? Well I'm sorry, we have no way of knowing whether or not youll turn it on slyly. Youre going to have to buy a copy of Win2K anyway - just in case you see - its not that we dont believe you, but we cant take risks; you know how it is.

Whats that you say? You think that if everyone is legally required to own a copy of Win2K that Microsoft will have no incentive to improve their service, because no competition is allowed to exist within this artifically created governmentally enforced monopoly? Well thats just crazy talk! Trust us - we know whats best for you, why would we lie?





Do you see?

[CjC]

I agree with what Nod said just there. Unfortunately this is one of those old problems. This is to do with Licensing of receiving broadcasted signals. Hey, years ago we used to have a radio license, and to this day you still need to apply for a license to broadcast radio.

So we are paying for the priviledge of receiving broadcasted television pictures, the funding in turn is then used as spending on television production.

However - I also think that this "Concept" is very outdated given the influx of new technologies bringing us TV and Film.

Bear in mind that we pay through the nose for mobile phone use. If we didnt you'd probably have to have a license for that as well. And then there is the cost of the Internet. Well, I could go on...

And to think that the telephony companies in Britain are all going bust because of so called "3G" licensing.

Should we attack the Beeb for this? not really. I think that .gov.uk need to redesign and rethink their Bandwidth licensing strategies - for all forms of media.