Why can't the bbc show adverts like all the other channels so we don't haveto pay so much for just 4 channels a year when the other 50 decent channels on freeview show decent programmes too.
But you will end up paying more for them. You did know that ITV costs more per minute of programming than the BBC didn't you? Commercial TV channels don't have some magic money tree; they have to make a profit for their shareholders and they pay their stars more. You end up (a) paying more (b) suffering adverts (c) watching identical programmes to those on ITV aimed at the hard of thinking.
We won't know unless you say what sort of things you think are "beyond reasonable proportion".
The fact that you are stalling says a lot though.
I'm going to assume that when push comes to shove you can't think of anything after all.
Whatever I say will be criticized and then we'll up rehashing an old debate. That said one example that jumps immediately to mind was some posters support of Jonathon Ross's pay packet at the BBC.
So there is just so much advertising this country can take, if you make the BBC take ads then you ruin TV and Radio.
Its impossible to make that claim without detailed economic analysis
.
The LF is cheap 40p her household per day, that makes it assessable to low incomes, pensioners etc, the fact everyone pays brings costs down but gives affordable TV, SKY etc are not affordable to many people.
so people who say well I do not want to pay the LF are thinking in a selfish way just for them and not their wider community where we all pay a little and get TV and Radio that's some peoples only enjoyment and connection with the world.
It's like the Royal Mail one price across the country so sending an item to an island is the same as sending it down the street, working collectively we all in this country keep prices down and help the people less well off.
To dome it's me, me, me not broadcasting to the millions but want their own personal service for free.
What if you are low income person who has to pay for the LF just to watch any TV, surely that isn't fair?
Collectively paying for something does make things cheaper, but its unfair to make people do that for unnecessary services.
Whatever I say will be criticized and then we'll up rehashing an old debate. That said one example that jumps immediately to mind was some posters support of Jonathon Ross's pay packet at the BBC.
Was that when people pointed out that the so-called "pay packet" for Jonathan Ross was actually the annual budget for the entire series (which therefore included studio rental, production costs, wages for all the staff etc)? So where did you stand on this particular argument?
What if you are low income person who has to pay for the LF just to watch any TV, surely that isn't fair?
Collectively paying for something does make things cheaper, but its unfair to make people do that for unnecessary services.
People on low income will always struggle to pay their bills. Are you suggesting the answer is for the service provider to make their product free for them? And if you believe it's unfair for society to make provisions for these people because TV is an unnecessary service, then what you're actually saying is that it's not necessary for them to watch TV.
Was that when people pointed out that the so-called "pay packet" for Jonathan Ross was actually the annual budget for the entire series (which therefore included studio rental. production costs, wages for all the staff etc)? ?
And the silence/lack of acknowledgement of those facts was almost defeaning.
Well at least until the same posters bought up his supposed wage again, and again, having completely ignored./forgotten/hoped new users weren't aware of the facts.
It's a little like some people were taking the income/profit of a company another BBC presenter has as his pay from the BBC, and could/would not understand that the company he owned did a lot of work for other organisations (as a content distributor), and also dealt with all of his non BBC work such as stage shows (and the sale of DVD's made from his stage shows).
Or the way people seem to think that because the BBC is a "public service broadcaster" and is "publicly funded", it's somehow totally immune from any market pressure when it comes to dealing with suppliers and staff (when in reality the BBC is unable to take advantage of many of the options the commercial broadcasters can which may reduce costs).
People on low income will always struggle to pay their bills. Are you suggesting the answer is for the service provider to make their product free for them? And if you believe it's unfair for society to make provisions for these people because TV is an unnecessary service, then what you're actually saying is that it's not necessary for them to watch TV.
No I'm suggesting a voluntary subscription service. I don't think its a fair requirement to make people pay a Tax if they want to watch any TV.
No I'm suggesting a voluntary subscription service. I don't think its a fair requirement to make people pay a Tax if they want to watch any TV.
And they don't.
If you don't want to watch any TV you don't need a TVL.
It's quite easy to opt out of via simply not paying the TVL but if you get upset of letters asking a legally mandated question (do you need a TVL?), a minute online will inform them that you don't need one, and usually stop any letters for a couple of years.
Whatever I say will be criticized and then we'll up rehashing an old debate. That said one example that jumps immediately to mind was some posters support of Jonathon Ross's pay packet at the BBC.
The immediate example that springs to mind is about someone who hasn't worked at the BBC for nearly five years? That says a lot in itself.
I wonder what people said exactly - maybe they said they supported his salary, or maybe they just acknowledged something to the effect of the fact that top talent in the industry command top salaries. They may even have pointed out that the figures bandied around in the media would have been the amount paid to the production company, and not his personal salary.
Understanding why something happens is arguably a little different to actively supporting it. Where would we be if we all took every tabloid headline at face value?
Its impossible to make that claim without detailed economic analysis.
What if you are low income person who has to pay for the LF just to watch any TV, surely that isn't fair?
Collectively paying for something does make things cheaper, but its unfair to make people do that for unnecessary services.
It doesn't take that much analysis to realise that there is only so much ad money to go around.
With low income, the whole point is that it is a small amount compared to, say, a Sky or Cable subscription, so people on low incomes do have access to some decent tv.
If you don't want to watch any TV you don't need a TVL.
It's quite easy to opt out of via simply not paying the TVL but if you get upset of letters asking a legally mandated question (do you need a TVL?), a minute online will inform them that you don't need one, and usually stop any letters for a couple of years.
Read what I said again, I'm not talking about people who don't watch any TV.
It doesn't take that much analysis to realise that there is only so much ad money to go around.
With low income, the whole point is that it is a small amount compared to, say, a Sky or Cable subscription, so people on low incomes do have access to some decent tv.
Do people need decent quality TV? It's just your opinion (and mine somewhat) that the BBC produces quality TV and ITV, Channel 4 etc don't but that doesn't mean other people will see it like that.
It's been answered in this thread and on this board many times.
there is only a certain amount of budget by companies who want to advertise, and if you add the BBC to that then other TV and Radio and Newspapers loose income.
It's supply and demand, if you increase supply of advert opportunity then prices for ads will fall, so first thing there is a battle ad prices fall income falls and TV gets poorer on all channels.
We all pay for adverts, ie ITV via buying brands in shops who advertise that's already under pressure as people swap yo cheaper shops and save money not buying brand names.
If you had Ads on BBC1 and ITV would it make you buy two turkeys for Christmas? No!
If BBC takes Ads then other channels loose income and some go bust. You then will have the likes of Sky increase their subscriptions.
So there is just so much advertising this country can take, if you make the BBC take ads then you ruin TV and Radio.
Some few people say, .
The LF is cheap 40p her household per day, that makes it assessable to low incomes, pensioners etc, the fact everyone pays brings costs down but gives affordable TV, SKY etc are not affordable to many people.
so people who say well I do not want to pay the LF are thinking in a selfish way just for them and not their wider community where we all pay a little and get TV and Radio that's some peoples only enjoyment and connection with the world.
It's like the Royal Mail one price across the country so sending an item to an island is the same as sending it down the street, working collectively we all in this country keep prices down and help the people less well off.
To dome it's me, me, me not broadcasting to the millions but want their own personal service for free.
BBC gets funded by the Licence Fee - People don't need to pay anything to watch TV - never mind 'collectively working (paying) together for the poor' crap
Household I live in is exempt from Licence Fee at the present time but I do spend disposable income on DVDs - because I choose to
Do people need decent quality TV? It's just your opinion (and mine somewhat) that the BBC produces quality TV and ITV, Channel 4 etc don't but that doesn't mean other people will see it like that.
If people feel they don't want it, they can always opt out. Its not just about the quality - I wouldn't say that there's no good stuff on commercial tv. But I would say that the BBC produces a good proportion of good stuff covering a broader range of subjects than commercial tv. (Or at least FTA commercial tv.) People might not be interested in that, but that much seems difficult to dispute.
The main reason it can do that is because it is not subject to the same commercial pressures as commercial broadcasters.
Out of interest where do pro-BBC/ LF payers think that the BBC goes wrong or could improve?
That's probably quite difficult to answer. They do produce a lot of stuff that I have no interest in. But then the BBC isn't just there for me. If it has to cater to 60m people plus, then as long as it is providing a good variety of content, it should provide at least something for everyone.
I do wonder if people miss the point a bit when they say they hardly watch anything. Most people probably don't watch that much. But maybe you don't need to watch that much to get some value from what - about £3 a week for a household.
Out of interest where do pro-BBC/ LF payers think that the BBC goes wrong or could improve?
There's a lot of stuff on the BBC that even I, as a staunch licence fee supporter, find poor (Radio 1) or wasteful (Top Gear).
But then I remember that the licence caters for everyone, and if it produces something I don't like, I will always have a BBC-provided alternative. I love a lot of BBC Four's output, I regularly watch EastEnders and many of the classic sitcoms the Beeb has produced over the years, I use the BBC News and Sport apps, my children make much use of CBBC and CBeebies, and though I don't use it a great deal, I think the iPlayer is excellent.
More than compensates for the crap. And one persons crap is another's cream! None of us could ever get an entire BBC that was tailored just to our tastes and needs, it's impossible. Besides, it's 40p a day. A lot of people pay more than that for an agenda-driven, fear-fuelling newspaper that provides little more than political sniping, vacuous celebrity/royalty page-filling, and last nights football results.
Why can't the bbc show adverts like all the other channels so we don't haveto pay so much for just 4 channels a year when the other 50 decent channels on freeview show decent programmes too.
BIB...
8 TV channels
8 National Radio Stations
40 local radio stations
Website
Well it's easy to prove me wrong. Simply link to a post where someone states anything like that opinion
I know, you might not have seen it but a few pages back I asked you if you thought there was anything that BBC did wrong and would like to be changed? I wonder whether you had an answer to that question.
Well they should counter each and every negative, error- and lie-ridden article in the anti-BBC press; but I know that's never going to happen. They should also no close BBC3 but I don't think that will happen either.
Collectively paying for something does make things cheaper, but its unfair to make people do that for unnecessary services
.[/QUOTE]
Many countries around the world believe that a public service broadcaster is necessary; and every UK Govt. for the last 80+ (?) years has thought so too.
There's a lot of stuff on the BBC that even I, as a staunch licence fee supporter, find poor (Radio 1) or wasteful (Top Gear).
But then I remember that the licence caters for everyone, and if it produces something I don't like, I will always have a BBC-provided alternative. I love a lot of BBC Four's output, I regularly watch EastEnders and many of the classic sitcoms the Beeb has produced over the years, I use the BBC News and Sport apps, my children make much use of CBBC and CBeebies, and though I don't use it a great deal, I think the iPlayer is excellent.
More than compensates for the crap. And one persons crap is another's cream! None of us could ever get an entire BBC that was tailored just to our tastes and needs, it's impossible. Besides, it's 40p a day. A lot of people pay more than that for an agenda-driven, fear-fuelling newspaper that provides little more than political sniping, vacuous celebrity/royalty page-filling, and last nights football results.
Excellent post!
Some people fail to see what is staring them in the face.
Whatever I say will be criticized and then we'll up rehashing an old debate. That said one example that jumps immediately to mind was some posters support of Jonathon Ross's pay packet at the BBC.
Because it wasn't actually HIS "pay packet" perhaps?
Do you not think it's important for these media lies to be countered before the sheep actually believe them?
Out of interest where do pro-BBC/ LF payers think that the BBC goes wrong or could improve?
It has an executive called Alan Yentob who is paid £130,000 a year salary (BBC figure) and then paid an additional £150,000 a year (BBC figure) to front Imagine, a series of largely bought-in documentaries which he re-voices. Immediate saving of £280,000 a year.
It has an executive called Alan Yentob who is paid £130,000 a year salary (BBC figure) and then paid an additional £150,000 a year (BBC figure) to front Imagine, a series of largely bought-in documentaries which he re-voices. Immediate saving of £280,000 a year.
Why would there be such a saving? Wouldn't someone else have to replace him?
as a beeb supporter i too deplore the disgusting management salaries but they are certainly no higher than those paid in our privateering robber baron "industries" ......
Comments
You sound like someone who is extremely hard to please!
But you will end up paying more for them. You did know that ITV costs more per minute of programming than the BBC didn't you? Commercial TV channels don't have some magic money tree; they have to make a profit for their shareholders and they pay their stars more. You end up (a) paying more (b) suffering adverts (c) watching identical programmes to those on ITV aimed at the hard of thinking.
Whatever I say will be criticized and then we'll up rehashing an old debate. That said one example that jumps immediately to mind was some posters support of Jonathon Ross's pay packet at the BBC.
Its impossible to make that claim without detailed economic analysis
.
What if you are low income person who has to pay for the LF just to watch any TV, surely that isn't fair?
Collectively paying for something does make things cheaper, but its unfair to make people do that for unnecessary services.
And was under half the tariff for that sort of programming ......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/how-we-work/business-requirements/tariff-ranges.shtml
And the silence/lack of acknowledgement of those facts was almost defeaning.
Well at least until the same posters bought up his supposed wage again, and again, having completely ignored./forgotten/hoped new users weren't aware of the facts.
It's a little like some people were taking the income/profit of a company another BBC presenter has as his pay from the BBC, and could/would not understand that the company he owned did a lot of work for other organisations (as a content distributor), and also dealt with all of his non BBC work such as stage shows (and the sale of DVD's made from his stage shows).
Or the way people seem to think that because the BBC is a "public service broadcaster" and is "publicly funded", it's somehow totally immune from any market pressure when it comes to dealing with suppliers and staff (when in reality the BBC is unable to take advantage of many of the options the commercial broadcasters can which may reduce costs).
No I'm suggesting a voluntary subscription service. I don't think its a fair requirement to make people pay a Tax if they want to watch any TV.
And they don't.
If you don't want to watch any TV you don't need a TVL.
It's quite easy to opt out of via simply not paying the TVL but if you get upset of letters asking a legally mandated question (do you need a TVL?), a minute online will inform them that you don't need one, and usually stop any letters for a couple of years.
The immediate example that springs to mind is about someone who hasn't worked at the BBC for nearly five years? That says a lot in itself.
I wonder what people said exactly - maybe they said they supported his salary, or maybe they just acknowledged something to the effect of the fact that top talent in the industry command top salaries. They may even have pointed out that the figures bandied around in the media would have been the amount paid to the production company, and not his personal salary.
Understanding why something happens is arguably a little different to actively supporting it. Where would we be if we all took every tabloid headline at face value?
It doesn't take that much analysis to realise that there is only so much ad money to go around.
With low income, the whole point is that it is a small amount compared to, say, a Sky or Cable subscription, so people on low incomes do have access to some decent tv.
Read what I said again, I'm not talking about people who don't watch any TV.
Do people need decent quality TV? It's just your opinion (and mine somewhat) that the BBC produces quality TV and ITV, Channel 4 etc don't but that doesn't mean other people will see it like that.
BBC gets funded by the Licence Fee - People don't need to pay anything to watch TV - never mind 'collectively working (paying) together for the poor' crap
Household I live in is exempt from Licence Fee at the present time but I do spend disposable income on DVDs - because I choose to
If people feel they don't want it, they can always opt out. Its not just about the quality - I wouldn't say that there's no good stuff on commercial tv. But I would say that the BBC produces a good proportion of good stuff covering a broader range of subjects than commercial tv. (Or at least FTA commercial tv.) People might not be interested in that, but that much seems difficult to dispute.
The main reason it can do that is because it is not subject to the same commercial pressures as commercial broadcasters.
That's probably quite difficult to answer. They do produce a lot of stuff that I have no interest in. But then the BBC isn't just there for me. If it has to cater to 60m people plus, then as long as it is providing a good variety of content, it should provide at least something for everyone.
I do wonder if people miss the point a bit when they say they hardly watch anything. Most people probably don't watch that much. But maybe you don't need to watch that much to get some value from what - about £3 a week for a household.
There's a lot of stuff on the BBC that even I, as a staunch licence fee supporter, find poor (Radio 1) or wasteful (Top Gear).
But then I remember that the licence caters for everyone, and if it produces something I don't like, I will always have a BBC-provided alternative. I love a lot of BBC Four's output, I regularly watch EastEnders and many of the classic sitcoms the Beeb has produced over the years, I use the BBC News and Sport apps, my children make much use of CBBC and CBeebies, and though I don't use it a great deal, I think the iPlayer is excellent.
More than compensates for the crap. And one persons crap is another's cream! None of us could ever get an entire BBC that was tailored just to our tastes and needs, it's impossible. Besides, it's 40p a day. A lot of people pay more than that for an agenda-driven, fear-fuelling newspaper that provides little more than political sniping, vacuous celebrity/royalty page-filling, and last nights football results.
8 TV channels
8 National Radio Stations
40 local radio stations
Website
So a little more than "4 channels" then
Well it's easy to prove me wrong. Simply link to a post where someone states anything like that opinion
Well they should counter each and every negative, error- and lie-ridden article in the anti-BBC press; but I know that's never going to happen. They should also no close BBC3 but I don't think that will happen either.
.[/QUOTE]
Many countries around the world believe that a public service broadcaster is necessary; and every UK Govt. for the last 80+ (?) years has thought so too.
Excellent post!
Some people fail to see what is staring them in the face.
Because it wasn't actually HIS "pay packet" perhaps?
Do you not think it's important for these media lies to be countered before the sheep actually believe them?
It has an executive called Alan Yentob who is paid £130,000 a year salary (BBC figure) and then paid an additional £150,000 a year (BBC figure) to front Imagine, a series of largely bought-in documentaries which he re-voices. Immediate saving of £280,000 a year.
Why would there be such a saving? Wouldn't someone else have to replace him?