sharke

Jonbouy


My views are clear, and so are yours, they differ somewhat.

I do believe that an industry that requires an infrastructure where commerce has no interest in supporting the same level of coverage for all should be facilited to some degree at a government level by public funding.

I'm not for nationalisation as such, but there are industries where the playing field needs levelling up a bit first because commerce would side-line complete sectors of the community.  Broadcasting is one of those areas to my mind and the BBC does a pretty good job of maintaining the pitch for everyone to play on even now.

I'd be sad to lose my Auntie for sure, even at a saving of £140 a year.

But you could still have all that for £140 a year. It would involve the BBC shedding itself of all the trash culture and banal crap that they churn out for no other reason than ratings, and concentrating on what they do best, which is news, sport, documentary, kids TV (I'm talking Fingerbobs and Bagpuss, not the crap they churn out now) and highbrow period drama. This would slash their running costs dramatically and allow them to survive by a relatively small annual subscription paid for by those who wish to watch it. They could also sell any good shows they make to an international audience, as they do now. Instead, they have incredibly high running costs brought about by all the lowbrow trash fronted by overpaid big-name celebs, which they have to spit out to justify the fact that the majority of people from whom they extort money from (i.e. plebs) enjoy that sort of thing. It's a vicious circle. 

No the thing I gladly pay a license fee for is the infrastructure not the programming so much.  Trouble is the Beeb lost much of that function when the UK got caught with it's pants down and carried on with the distinction between radio waves and telecommunications.
 
So instead of scoring highly like it did at the birth of radio by putting a national network together which it then run, it lagged behind, not solely down to it's own failings as successive governments failed to grasp the obvious also.  It was easy to tell even during the '80's that telecomms and broadcasting were going to end up meaning the same thing but nobody acted with sufficient enough commitment at the time and we've been playing catch up ever since.
 
Broadband access is still patchy here because of that.  It's fine of course where there is enough commercial demand to warrant it and you'll get blistering speeds, but live somewhere off the beaten track and you'll still get outages when it rains.
 
A good communications infrastructure which is made available to the whole country, which is what the BBC was concieved to provide, is far more valuable to the nation than privately funded hotspots, and this is where public funding scores over bottom-line commerce.  In bringing about a coherent strategy.
 
I couldn't give two hoots about what channel I watch my garbage on or who produces the best garbage, for me it's about how to get the best value, the best quality and most accessible means for EVERYONE to be able to get at the garbage they want.
 
Sadly the Beeb paid a high price due to prevarication from various sources including itself and where it could have been a shining example and forerunner of new media it is now fighting for its life as a result.  Fighting it is though and it still has the backing of many that can see the sense in it providing that function and it still has plenty of worth which it would certainly lose if it became yet another opt-in subscription service that had to cherry pick like everything else out there just those things that showed merely bottom line profitability. 
 
Sadly we're all losers in the free-market economy that has screwed itself so badly we are all currently skint, and given that I'd back the BBC, warts and all, over most of the more blatantly commercial media moguls out there just now by some wide margin.
Incidentally I don't think the license fee to fund the national communications infrastruce should be recovered in the way it is currently by having to license the equipment I think the money should be raised by a levy on private companies that charge for subscription services that rely on that infrastructure, that way you are only charging the users of that infrastrucure on a use by use basis and you are able to dump the law enforcement costs required that the current system incurs for reclaiming revenue from license defaulters.

sharke

Jonbouy

  
Completely wrong btw.
You need to check your facts here as you are clearly out of touch.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/

OK so I was wrong on that technicality. It does not change the brunt of my argument, which is that you are required to purchase a license even if you do not watch the BBC and have no intention of doing so. Whether you watch nothing but Sky or DVD, or do nothing but play video games, it's all the same. They all come under the umbrella of "everything but watching the BBC."       

Dear Mr. Sharke.
 
You are completely missing the point.  You do not have to pay a license fee to own a TV.  You do not have to pay a license fee to watch DVDs.  You ONLY pay the license fee if you wish to watch recieve BROADCAST services, regardless of who the provider is or how the service is broadcast.   The Goverment of every country worldwide claims ownership in one way or another of the radio spectrum within its borders, just as it claims ownership of the physical air space.  All Governments that allow private broadcasting charge the broadcasters a license fee for use of the radio spectrum.  The British government also charges the broadcast receiving consumers a fee for using the radio spectrum, and the money it receives it allocates to the BBC to provide a free service. 
 
 For the past 80+ years the only way to broadcast was through use of the radio spectrum, but with the developement of live streaming through data networks it is important to realise that the license is for "Broadcast Services" and includes any live feeds using any transmition medium.
 
To compair to cars,  if you wish to drive your car on "public" (government owned) roads then you have to pay road tax.  In theory we should have the best roads in the world with the revenue the gov gets from road tax, but it's well documented that the amount the Gov receives far outstrips the amount actually spent on our roads. But regardless of what they choose to use the road tax revenue for, to drive on a public road you have to pay.
 If you keep your car on Private roads, race tracks, etc., then you do not have to pay road tax.
 
If you buy a television it is assumed that you'll use it to receive broadcast services (that is what TVs are for) and thus you need a license.  If you can prove that you only use it to watch DVDs or your own self-produced content then you do NOT need to buy a license.  If you have a computer and you watch youtube videos you do NOT need a license.  If you watch recorded programs on the BBC iPlayer (paid for by those of us that do pay the license fee) you do NOT need a license.
If you use your computer to watch LIVE FEEDS on BBC iPlayer, or the eqivalent from other providers, then you DO have to buy a license as it is a broadcast service.
 
 
When you pay out £600+ a year to BSkyB or Virgin Media you're buying content, NOT the right to watch it.

I'm thinking about instituting a small fee for the use of my nickname as a attractive force that invites people to debate.

I'm gonna ask Bouy ltd. to represent my interest... which should earn him a tidy sum.

We will keep the fee reasonable so that people feel they are getting their money's worth.

Karyn

sharke

Jonbouy

  
Completely wrong btw.
You need to check your facts here as you are clearly out of touch.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/

OK so I was wrong on that technicality. It does not change the brunt of my argument, which is that you are required to purchase a license even if you do not watch the BBC and have no intention of doing so. Whether you watch nothing but Sky or DVD, or do nothing but play video games, it's all the same. They all come under the umbrella of "everything but watching the BBC."       

Dear Mr. Sharke.
 
You are completely missing the point.  You do not have to pay a license fee to own a TV.  You do not have to pay a license fee to watch DVDs.  You ONLY pay the license fee if you wish to watch recieve BROADCAST services, regardless of who the provider is or how the service is broadcast.   The Goverment of every country worldwide claims ownership in one way or another of the radio spectrum within its borders, just as it claims ownership of the physical air space.  All Governments that allow private broadcasting charge the broadcasters a license fee for use of the radio spectrum.  The British government also charges the broadcast receiving consumers a fee for using the radio spectrum, and the money it receives it allocates to the BBC to provide a free service. 
 
 For the past 80+ years the only way to broadcast was through use of the radio spectrum, but with the developement of live streaming through data networks it is important to realise that the license is for "Broadcast Services" and includes any live feeds using any transmition medium.
 
To compair to cars,  if you wish to drive your car on "public" (government owned) roads then you have to pay road tax.  In theory we should have the best roads in the world with the revenue the gov gets from road tax, but it's well documented that the amount the Gov receives far outstrips the amount actually spent on our roads. But regardless of what they choose to use the road tax revenue for, to drive on a public road you have to pay.
 If you keep your car on Private roads, race tracks, etc., then you do not have to pay road tax.
 
If you buy a television it is assumed that you'll use it to receive broadcast services (that is what TVs are for) and thus you need a license.  If you can prove that you only use it to watch DVDs or your own self-produced content then you do NOT need to buy a license.  If you have a computer and you watch youtube videos you do NOT need a license.  If you watch recorded programs on the BBC iPlayer (paid for by those of us that do pay the license fee) you do NOT need a license.
If you use your computer to watch LIVE FEEDS on BBC iPlayer, or the eqivalent from other providers, then you DO have to buy a license as it is a broadcast service.
 
 
When you pay out £600+ a year to BSkyB or Virgin Media you're buying content, NOT the right to watch it.

I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just don't think the government has a moral right to charge you for a license to watch non-BBC TV. If you're receiving cable TV, the upkeep of that cable network is paid for out of the subscription fee that you pay, same as your Internet and phone bills. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for charging people for a product that they don't want. 

sharke

 

I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just don't think the government has a moral right to charge you for a license to watch non-BBC TV. If you're receiving cable TV, the upkeep of that cable network is paid for out of the subscription fee that you pay, same as your Internet and phone bills. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for charging people for a product that they don't want. 

Yes I think it's known what you think about the governments rights already.
 
If you use subscription services they tend to major on providing the most profitable parts of maintaining their own network to do that and tend to isolate everyone else. Just like private rail operators will only service routes that make money.
 
There is a need to override the limitations of commercial interest in making an infrastructure work equally well for everyone regardless of their location.  Funding should come from those that want to broadcast media in this country and they shouldn't be entitled to just cherry pick those priviledged few that they want to service they should be contributing to a complete infrastructure that benefits Farmer Joe as much as it does City Jack.  Which one of those guys is most important to the economy as a whole?  Talk to the bean counters and they will tell you City Jack everytime, that is the immoral part.
 
I gave an example of the programming WRT to ClassicFM and Radio 3 already which you disregarded, and there are countless quality broadcasts produced that wouldn't exist if commerciality was the only concern.  The amount of higher eductation degrees that people have managed to obtain the charitable concerns that have benefitted and countless other services the BBC continues to provide quite simply wouldn't happen if left to cold hard commerce.
 
Good news for you, you don't need to buy a license you chose to live elsewhere, many here are happy to purchase an annual license and do so because of what it provides.  As Karyn said to emphasise a point I'd already made, you don't need to pay the license if you don't want to.  You make a declaration that you wont be watching live broadcast TV and don't pay.  If you are telling lies and get caught out you'll get fined, only after you are found guilty and ordered to pay a fine and then refuse to pay that fine do you face the prospect of a jail term.
 
I just don't get your beef or your need to slag off all the BBC's employees as conforming to your stereotype or the British government as being immoral or oppresive because of it. 
 
Where you are coming from just seems like plain internet weirdness from my perspective.

sharke


There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for charging people for a product that they don't want. 

That hasn't stopped any governing force from taxing you for it though.

craigb

sharke


There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for charging people for a product that they don't want. 

That hasn't stopped any governing force from taxing you for it though.

Precisely, the license is just a single purpose tax and what it raises money for is a conspikuous organization that is accoutable to the fee payers.
 
You can even opt not to join in.
 
They can't say fairer than that.

I won a prize on BBC local radio once for answering a quiz question correctly, it ran for two days before I became the first person to phone in with the right answer.
 
Had I entered a similar contest on a commercial station I'd have won a rake of skiing equipment or a golfing weekend for two in a luxury resort, instead I was offered a choice between a set of coasters or a fridge magnet.
 
I chose the fridge magnet of course, along with the notion of being able to answer a question that had been driving folk nuts for two days, that was far more fun and rewarding than some flash skiing kit or a golfing weekend neither of which would have interested me.
 
I suppose I could have got a few quid by selling the skis, but I still have the fridge magnet and the smell of victory in my nostrils...

Now if that magnet came with a Marshall fridge...

Yes I think it's known what you think about the governments rights already. 

Technically speaking, a government does not and cannot have "rights," which are something that applies to individuals. Although I'm sure you knew that. 

If you use subscription services they tend to major on providing the most profitable parts of maintaining their own network to do that and tend to isolate everyone else. Just like private rail operators will only service routes that make money. 

Yeah, like 90% of the BBC's output isn't commercial crap that panders to the lowest common denominator. You know as well as I do that the BBC operates very much like a commercial organization to which ratings are the holy grail. 

There is a need to override the limitations of commercial interest in making an infrastructure work equally well for everyone regardless of their location.  Funding should come from those that want to broadcast media in this country and they shouldn't be entitled to just cherry pick those priviledged few that they want to service they should be contributing to a complete infrastructure that benefits Farmer Joe as much as it does City Jack.  Which one of those guys is most important to the economy as a whole?  Talk to the bean counters and they will tell you City Jack everytime, that is the immoral part. 

The "limitations of commercial interest"? What makes you think that the BBC isn't bound by similar constraints? The BBC is the same as any commercial station in that ratings are a significant part of their goal. The difference being that commercial stations have the sale of advertising as a motive, while the BBC is motivated by the need to justify the license fee to the TV-watching masses who are forced to pay for it. The end result is the same: 90% of all TV, including that produced by the BBC, is throwaway trash made for the lowest common denominator. If only it were the case that the sole purpose of the BBC was to fill in the gaps left by commercial broadcasting. If it were so, the BBC would be able to operate on a tiny fraction of its current running costs, and could probably be funded by a combination of subscriptions and private donations. 

I gave an example of the programming WRT to ClassicFM and Radio 3 already which you disregarded, and there are countless quality broadcasts produced that wouldn't exist if commerciality was the only concern.  The amount of higher eductation degrees that people have managed to obtain the charitable concerns that have benefitted and countless other services the BBC continues to provide quite simply wouldn't happen if left to cold hard commerce. 

All of this is irrelevant given that people can now get all of this content for free on the internet. Besides, art and music are subjective. Who are you, or anyone else, to declare that the content of Classic FM is inferior to Radio 3? 

Good news for you, you don't need to buy a license you chose to live elsewhere, many here are happy to purchase an annual license and do so because of what it provides.

And an equal number of people would rather not pay said license fee for the "privelege" of watching TV. But let's just disregard their views because...er...reasons. 

As Karyn said to emphasise a point I'd already made, you don't need to pay the license if you don't want to.  You make a declaration that you wont be watching live broadcast TV and don't pay.  If you are telling lies and get caught out you'll get fined, only after you are found guilty and ordered to pay a fine and then refuse to pay that fine do you face the prospect of a jail term. 

None of which actually justifies charging people for a channel they don't wish to view. If you don't agree with the fine, you'll go to jail. If you don't want to go to jail, you'll be physically forced to. "Just comply then and it won't happen" isn't an argument, it's just an attempt at whitewashing what is in effect the criminalization of people whose only "crime" was to resist the purchase of something they don't want. 
   

I just don't get your beef or your need to slag off all the BBC's employees as conforming to your stereotype or the British government as being immoral or oppresive because of it.  
  
Where you are coming from just seems like plain internet weirdness from my perspective. 

That's right Jonbouy, anyone with an alternative viewpoint is "weird." I'm surprised you even support the production of alternative, non-commercial TV with that kind of attitude