The Old Git Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 It may have changed since I left the UK/IOM. I wouldn't be suprised. Here in Poland we get ................ So let me check if I have got this right. You start of a topic moaning about the BBC licencse fee only you do not live in the UK or IoM so it does not apply to you. I don't think cheesemonster2005 is still around. I resurrected this 2.5 year old thread when I was looking for the copy of the letter I'd posted on here earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I don't deny the BBC is a valuable service but there are tens of thousands of people out there paying for a service they never use. It also annoys me that they employ w@nkers like Jonathan Ross on £18m contracts, when they are not in a rating war with other stations. That is where they are going seriously wrong, competing with other stations on commercial terms when they are not a commercial entity. Its plain stupid. But they are in a ratings war and competing with other channels. If they got low audiences then more would compalin about the license fee being a waste of money. In fact you argue against yourself as on one hand you state that the BBC should not be competing and chasing audiences but on the other you question why people should pay for a service they do not use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 It also annoys me that they employ w@nkers like Jonathan Ross on £18m contracts, when they are not in a rating war with other stations. As long as the quality and impartiality are there they shouldn't care whether they have 10 viewers of 10m viewers because they are not appealing for advertisers revenue. But if the BBC had very low ratings, it would add weight to those calling for the abolition of the licence fee. I agree though it is frustrating to know that their two main radio stations are paying vast sums of money to their breakfast djs, when those individuals (Wogan and Moyles) are incompetant broadcasters unfit to host a internet radio stream from their bedrooms to five people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 But they are in a ratings war and competing with other channels. If they got low audiences then more would compalin about the license fee being a waste of money. They aren't in a ratings war as they are not chasing advertising revenue what they are in fact doing, as you pointed out, is justifying their existence by going for viewer numbers. That is a very different thing. You can in fact deliver quality programmes to a wide audience without the current expenses they have. What Declan says about the DJ's is right - they are paying for overpaid "celebrities" to do this stuff when there is lots of new talent out there that could do a better job at a tenth of the cost. BBC3 was a good example of that with Little Britain, or Mitchell and Webb where they took on new talent cheaply and got it right. I bet they are now paying the likes of Matt Lucas and David Wailliams millions of licensepayers money to "keep" them when in fact if they can get bigger deals on commercial TV they should let them go. Its not my job as a licensepayer to keep them in million pound deals, if their skills are of commercial value then the commercial stations should pick them up and let their lifestyles be funded by advertisers. As a licensepayer I still have to pay to own my set and that money goes to the BBC, yet I could watch Little Britain on the same telly on ITV at no extra cost to me with the minor inconvienience of having to watch a few ads. How do I lose out as a viewer? I don't, but my license fee wouldn't keep on going up just to keep these people with the BBC just because the BBC wants to justify the services it provides me with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I think the licence fee is worth it just for Radio 4 & 5. I have a licence but still get about 2 letters a month saying I haven't. I can't wait for them to call like they say they will (for about the last three years). I don't think they can enter your house without a warrant unless you invite them in. I think that's reserved for the police, HMRC and ultility companies on some safety mission (one of your neighbours said he could smell gas....) Don't they have to have a warrant first too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Jampton Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I have not had a TV that I can get a reception on for 3 years. I can watch DVDs though. I wrote a polite reply to their first licence enquiry explaining I would not require a licence from that day. I still get regular reminders which I store unopened next to a copy of my letter ready to hand over if I ever get the knock on the door I enjoy life with out a TV although I miss cricket and bike racing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Just think how much more money could be spent on better BBC programmes or with the same level of service we could all pay a smaller licence fee if no one dodged. Licence fe is worth every penny Most ills in society can long term be blamed on the crap on ITV and sky. Ban all other channels, now. Give BBC a monopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Licence fe is worth every penny Yes. There is also a trickle down effect from the licence fee which also effectively subsidizes British Isles (including Irish) TV and radio in general including channels which receive no direct funding from the licence revenue. Thinking in terms of eg - industry training, knowledge etc - also the money which production companies receive etc. The industry is effectively subsidized by the licence fee even including the entirely commercial and subscription services which receive no direct funding. In simple terms - your Sky package would cost you more for the same (ahem) quality if the licence fee was abolished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Just think how much more money could be spent on better BBC programmes or with the same level of service we could all pay a smaller licence fee if no one dodged. But how many people do dodge the fee? They're currently chasing 5 people that I know of who all have licences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 The World Service is a far better ambassador for the UK than it's diplomatic service. The BBC is also an innovator in content delivery - the radio player and podcasts are great for me as an overseas listener and I find the BBC News website indispensable. I don't have to pay it anymore, but I consider that the license fee represents pretty good value when compared to Sky and other cable subscriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I only got a sky because I couldn`t get a terestrial signal so now I pay for that as well as a tv licence its a rip off.If you only get a sub standard service you shouldn`t pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathen Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 So let me check if I have got this right. You start of a topic moaning about the BBC licencse fee only you do not live in the UK or IoM so it does not apply to you. I think I am with you. We really should do something about the prices of taxis in New York! To be fair I've always found the taxi fares in New York to be very reasonable. The price for the Horse-Drawn Carriage through Central Park is another matter though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 The World Service is a far better ambassador for the UK than it's diplomatic service. The World Service is paid for by the Foreign Office - not the licence fee. Isn't the Foreign Office more or less the same thing as what might be called the diplomatic service? Je ne comprends pas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Don't pay the fee - they need a warrant to enter your property - though may try to convince you otherwise. While they're off for the warrant move your set next door, if you have one. Alternatively, throw away your set, buy a really big montor and google BBC iplayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 As a licensepayer I still have to pay to own my set and that money goes to the BBC, yet I could watch Little Britain on the same telly on ITV at no extra cost to me with the minor inconvienience of having to watch a few ads. How do I lose out as a viewer? I don't, but my license fee wouldn't keep on going up just to keep these people with the BBC just because the BBC wants to justify the services it provides me with. I don't mean to be rude, but you are being a little naive. You do not watch ITV at 'no extra cost.' If that was the case, no one would advertise there. You pay for everything you see on TV. The BBC has to pay these large salaries because they have an obligation to do so under the Charter. To elaborate, they have to appeal to everyone. It is all very well them being innovate and taking a chance on new acts and artists, but they also have to look to stability as well as those people that like to see largely the same thing over and over again. This is why soaps do so well and dramas featuring young people do so poorly (or are more difficult to get right). So, if they didn't pay Jonathon Ross £18 Million until 210 (4.5 mil a year), he would go elsewhere. Channel 4 wanted to pay him more, and he would have taken a sizeable audience with him. It may seem a bit oxymoronic in the case of Moyles/Ross/Wogan, but you have to pay if you want the top talent. The BBC essentially drives multimedia innovation in Britain. Out of all its major media outlets, the BBC has led the way in terms of integrating blogging, rss feeds, bookmarking, effective web design, iPlayer, digital services, online streaming. The rest suffer from chronic "British syndrome" where they milk the same old thing until the very last second they have to change (or well after). And that is to say nothing about all the regional services they supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.