But you would be happy for those who are no longer forced to fund it but do carry on watching FTA television aren't you ?
not especially, as they would be too short sighted to consider the benefits to the population as whole, but rather only be concerned by their own wants.
you didn't say anything about stopping watching tv though.
unless you're arguing that 'live broadcasts' literally means just live television?
Iain
I'll clarify.
If I stop watching live sporting broadcasts, I will cancel my TVL because I will not be watching or recording (I presume that this is what your referring to) live TV broadcasts.
As it is at the moment, I watch or record 6 (yes 6) programmes from the BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 per week beacause I find that is all I'm interested in at the moment but this could increase or decrease (I've been disappointed with Silent Witness and Hustle so far) on a week to week basis.
Most of these programmes can be watched legally on a catch up service without a TVL as I'm sure you know.
I'll clarify.
If I stop watching live sporting broadcasts, I will cancel my TVL because I will not be watching or recording (I presume that this is what your referring to) live TV broadcasts.
As it is at the moment, I watch or record 6 (yes 6) programmes from the BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 per week beacause I find that is all I'm interested in at the moment but this could increase or decrease (I've been disappointed with Silent Witness and Hustle so far) on a week to week basis.
Most of these programmes can be watched legally on a catch up service without a TVL as I'm sure you know.
that's fair enough - but you didn't make that clear originally.
would you do that with any other publicly funded services, or just the BBC?
Iain
I don't know if liedown wants any other public services to be funded on a voluntary basis or not, but no doubt his confining his comments to the BBC is because this is a broadcasting forum.
Common sense in 2011 also suggests that the BBC should be offering subscription based programming rather than attempting to force people into funding them.
.
A poll commissioned by the BBC found a majority wanted new BBC services, like digital and catch up tv on the net, to be subscription funded.
I still see no evidence that anyone wants to discuss the BBC or the LF from the perspective of reasonable evidence for claimed facts and respect for others' views.
The posts on this thread over the past few days would seem to back that up.
The fact is (a) there are issues with LF enforcement (a case in another place has just been documented as won on appeal after "TVL" perjury - again); (b) there are valid different views about the need for the BBC and its desired composition. Just because the present BBC is £3bn+ pa and high viewing figures does not mean that that is what is desired by most people, or what is most desirable for the country as a whole.
But not whether they'd subscribe if their was a choice.
given that pretty much everyone watches television, it seems an almost certainty that a majority would choose to subscribe to the most watched channels.
Watching tv without a tv licence is a criminal offence, meaning a criminal record, a fine, and imprisonment if fine is not paid.
That sounds to me like 'forced'. How do you think,( with reasons ) "most people view it"?
i think they just accept it as part of life.
we all have to pay all sorts of taxes, but i don't think many of go around feeling that hard done by, or that we are *forced*, against our will, to pay them.
you may as well talk about how people are *forced* to pay for things in shops, as not paying for them is a criminal offence, meaning a criminal record, a fine, and possible imprisonment if the goods are not paid for.
would you describe yourself as feeling *forced* into paying for things?
I still see no evidence that anyone wants to discuss the BBC or the LF from the perspective of reasonable evidence for claimed facts and respect for others' views.
The posts on this thread over the past few days would seem to back that up.
.
I'm afraid I agree with Carl, your comment was a load of rubbish. Yet again you seem to confuse the fact that other people don't agree with an anti BBC position (which clearly many of the posts are), with the idea that they are somehow subduing debate. The problem you have is clearly with the fact that many of the points are successfully and reasonably argued against.
The posts on this thread do not back up your conclusion. In fact some of the frankly ludicrous statements made by certain posters didn't deserve respect and when challenged they refuse to engage in debate:-
@Iain: Sadly, our little chat has come to an end. I came here to express my opinion, not to answer your endless loaded questions.
So lets say we scrap the license fee and shut down the BBC, what will replace the BBC news, radio, TV and web site then?
Scrapping the license fee does not entail shutting down the BBC... and if they refused to go with sponsors like real T V broadcasters and they went bankrupt trying to find people to subscribe to them, you can watch Sky News which is miles better, faster and more accurate... or if you want left wing biased news, Channel 4 and their sponsors will be happy to provide you with that slant on current events.
A number of disruptive and argumentative posts have been removed from this thread. Please keep the discussion constructive and respectful of other forum members.
Scrapping the license fee does not entail shutting down the BBC... and if they refused to go with sponsors like real T V broadcasters and they went bankrupt trying to find people to subscribe to them, you can watch Sky News which is miles better, faster and more accurate... or if you want left wing biased news, Channel 4 and their sponsors will be happy to provide you with that slant on current events.
to come back to what we'd been discussing...
you mentioned ad breaks on the BBC. given the decline of ad revenue in tv, I'd be interested to hear you talk a bit more about where additional ad revenue would come from, and what effect you think it would have on existing commercial channels.
Comments
But you would be happy for those who would no longer forced to fund it but do carry on watching FTA television aren't you ?
not especially, as they would be too short sighted to consider the benefits to the population as whole, but rather only be concerned by their own wants.
Iain
Libraries are closing while the BBC has kept its billions. Strange but I don't see the BBC giving local services like the libraries around here either
the BBC has nothing to do with the funding of libraries.
Iain
I'll clarify.
If I stop watching live sporting broadcasts, I will cancel my TVL because I will not be watching or recording (I presume that this is what your referring to) live TV broadcasts.
As it is at the moment, I watch or record 6 (yes 6) programmes from the BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 per week beacause I find that is all I'm interested in at the moment but this could increase or decrease (I've been disappointed with Silent Witness and Hustle so far) on a week to week basis.
Most of these programmes can be watched legally on a catch up service without a TVL as I'm sure you know.
a. thinking the BBC isn't shit
and
b. thinking that the population as a whole gets an enormous amount from the BBC
are such outrageous, bias views to hold.
Iain
that's fair enough - but you didn't make that clear originally.
Iain
But not whether they'd subscribe if their was a choice.
Watching tv without a tv licence is a criminal offence, meaning a criminal record, a fine, and imprisonment if fine is not paid.
That sounds to me like 'forced'. How do you think,( with reasons ) "most people view it"?
I thought his point was clear, that he doesn't think he should be forced to pay for the BBC. What was unclear to you?
I don't know if liedown wants any other public services to be funded on a voluntary basis or not, but no doubt his confining his comments to the BBC is because this is a broadcasting forum.
A poll commissioned by the BBC found a majority wanted new BBC services, like digital and catch up tv on the net, to be subscription funded.
The posts on this thread over the past few days would seem to back that up.
The fact is (a) there are issues with LF enforcement (a case in another place has just been documented as won on appeal after "TVL" perjury - again); (b) there are valid different views about the need for the BBC and its desired composition. Just because the present BBC is £3bn+ pa and high viewing figures does not mean that that is what is desired by most people, or what is most desirable for the country as a whole.
Says who, come on iain I'm not the only one who wants to know who made you god
would you like me to post the figures from BARB, RAJAR and Alexa again?
Iain
given that pretty much everyone watches television, it seems an almost certainty that a majority would choose to subscribe to the most watched channels.
Iain
no, it was perfectly clear.
i was interested to know if the same view extended to other publicly funded services that they made no use of.
seeing as the argument appeared to be 'i shouldn't have to contribute to something i don't use'.
sorry if that wasn't clear to you.
Iain
i think they just accept it as part of life.
we all have to pay all sorts of taxes, but i don't think many of go around feeling that hard done by, or that we are *forced*, against our will, to pay them.
you may as well talk about how people are *forced* to pay for things in shops, as not paying for them is a criminal offence, meaning a criminal record, a fine, and possible imprisonment if the goods are not paid for.
would you describe yourself as feeling *forced* into paying for things?
or would that be just a little melodramatic?
Iain
What a load of rubbish
I'm afraid I agree with Carl, your comment was a load of rubbish. Yet again you seem to confuse the fact that other people don't agree with an anti BBC position (which clearly many of the posts are), with the idea that they are somehow subduing debate. The problem you have is clearly with the fact that many of the points are successfully and reasonably argued against.
The posts on this thread do not back up your conclusion. In fact some of the frankly ludicrous statements made by certain posters didn't deserve respect and when challenged they refuse to engage in debate:-
@Iain: Sadly, our little chat has come to an end. I came here to express my opinion, not to answer your endless loaded questions.
The BBC sucks.
Wow I didn't know the BBC were the only ones in the UK that did news, radio, TV and web site :eek:
Scrapping the license fee does not entail shutting down the BBC... and if they refused to go with sponsors like real T V broadcasters and they went bankrupt trying to find people to subscribe to them, you can watch Sky News which is miles better, faster and more accurate... or if you want left wing biased news, Channel 4 and their sponsors will be happy to provide you with that slant on current events.
to come back to what we'd been discussing...
you mentioned ad breaks on the BBC. given the decline of ad revenue in tv, I'd be interested to hear you talk a bit more about where additional ad revenue would come from, and what effect you think it would have on existing commercial channels.
Iain