Sure I heard something a long those lines by an audience member on last nights question time.
I was quite surprised by the animosity toward the Beeb with only two panel members completely defending it and hardly any audience members.
I was minded that the time was right for a licence increase but now I think it might be more damaging to the BBC than another freeze and further austerity measures.
We live in the internet age where the loud minority often shout down the quiet (and often more polite) majority and where if the majority shout back they are seen or certainly often labelled as bullies; its the way of the 'new world' Anyone can mouth off on twitter, facebook, DS and forums in general et at.
Their opinions are often very obviously flawed but they will sometimes attract other 'followers' who perhaps can't express themselves in such succinct terms and at a similar level of understanding; like forum trolls they feed off each other whilst rarely satisfying their hunger and just 'snack' on their moment of glory and driving them onwards to posting more.
Yeah i have got two of them packed away in their boxes, but you can still only watch what have been broadcasted. Anyway, I record stuff using mine and never watched half of it. i think there is still stuff on the disks of both units that i have never watched.
But you can only watch Netflix when they put it online? You don't dictate the initial broadcast date do you? A bit like VOD from many terrestrial channels I thought or have I missed something? Netlix and on demand TV put things up and takes things down on a whim so whats the real difference? Silly me, more POD with Netflix (Pap On Demand) which may fudge your choice when overwhelmed at the content available.
The two years is however a reasonable time for them to check again
In yours and the BBCs it is - but is not law - only a BBC guideline
IIRC your council tax bill if you've got an exemption has to be renewed every year and I think you are legally required to tell them if things change between check and another (likewise many other fees you are legally required to pay by law under certain circumstances).
As you say Council Tax has a law that compels them to check annualy, as do some others - but not the BBC
Of those who have got rid of lf all but NZ gave replaced it with direct subvention from the government.
For the uk the government stops collecting the LF ....
In other countries the broadcaster had to stop collecting its income,
Just nite that the BBC like most other PSB's has commercial income... About25%
Maybe, maybe not, you don't know if it would cost more.
Maybe if we had subscription the BBC may put some better content on. the problem is they know they will get £145 a year from most people, subscription, they have to work to keep people happy.
Boxes with the ability to accept smart cards and therefore block out channel would cost more, especially when they were initially launched, and they wouldn't be as cheap even now.
I personally would welcome such a system, whereby all channels were blocked on all TVs unless a smart card was inserted allowing the channels to be unencrypted.
With the government taking the responsibility of funding the implementation of the system and ensuring that all TV Licence holding households got enough cards for all of their TVs, at no extra cost to the householders.
You can keep banging on about a subscription BBC, but it is nothing more than a fantasy. A subscription BBC would not work, if such a subscription did work you can guarantee it would have been done by one of the commercial broadcasters by now.
I didn't realise that paying the TV license meant you were banned from using BBC iPlayer or PVRs to let you watch BBC programmes when you want. Do tell us more about that.
noise was talking about the likes of Netflix not using PVRs.
Use of any of the on-demand content services, iPlayer, 4OD Netflix etc, do not require a Licence, but the use of a PVR does, as the PVR records the programmes as it is broadcast which does require one.
The next Conservative assault on the BBC will be a suggestion that some selfish people want everyone else to pay for their TV viewing...
"Why should ordinary hard-working families pay for the TV viewing of a group of people well-able to pay for it themselves?!"
The BBC is moving away from providing an equal service to all sections of society.
So a large number of people feel unprovided for and must go elsewhere for their TV viewing.
Result: Anti-BBC types stir up trouble. TVL cut more.
You would think the Tories would love it, because even though they are all rich, they pay just as much tax in the form of the TV Licence as even the poorest do.
Is there a PSB in the world that operates by subscription ?
Also remember that the LF iis a government charge
And the BBC as a whole not just TV is mainly funded by it ..
Of the LF £103 goes to TV ...
But the LF also pays fir non BBC things like Bband rollout, s4c and local TV set up.
Also a load of crap as well, they have gone down to commercial TV level for crap. The Voice, the apprentice, Strictly come dancing, that is commercial cheap Tv.
Cherry-picking again, as usual. They do a lot more than that and it's easy to find out exactly what.
And you'll find many governments just increased taxation to fund the loss of direct license revenue; I'm in favour or some form of direct taxation to fund the beeb my self
And you'll find many governments just increased taxation to fund the loss of direct license revenue; I'm in favour or some form of direct taxation to fund the beeb my self
It should be noted the terrible quality of TV in the countries that have abolished their licence as well.
Boxes with the ability to accept smart cards and therefore block out channel would cost more, especially when they were initially launched, and they wouldn't be as cheap even now.
I believe it was Greg Dyke, when he was the DG who pushed for the FTA Freeview box after ITV Digital went belly up (due to their SECA encryption system being too easy to crack with bent cards).
I could be wrong here, but I recall that the BBC did an internal circulated survey which showed that only 19% of LF holders would bother if only the BBC channels went onto subscripton only.
They could have used Videoguard (like Sky) which has never been hacked (and would have been a reasonably cheap option) as all Sky boxes use this anyway.
They also could have also put a CAM slot in to every Freeview box, bought cams from NDS and then make all the BBC channels and S4C go behind a paywall, with each card being married to one box - the more TVs you have the more cards you would have to buy (at a reduced rate)
This would I believe, have been a more practical solution to the BBC funding problem - rather than charge everyone the same amount (rich or poor) as now. It could have been tied to Council Tax Benefit - with the government subsidising the cards for the poorest.
Today's front page of the Times looks entirely like a thinly disguised pitch by $ky to control access to broadcast television through their technology.
Has The Times published any verifiable source for this alleged ministerial consideration?
Such a claim does not lie comfortably alongside
In a statement released by her officer, Miller said:
"This is an interesting idea but timing is crucial and decriminalisation of the licence
fee should be on the table during charter review, not separate to the process."
Her spokesman added:
"We know that the justice secretary shares her view.
Maria will put decriminalisation of the licence fee on the table during
charter review discussions, but to do it before makes no sense."
Is there a PSB in the world that operates by subscription ?
TV2 in Denmark is the closest, forced to go behind a paywall due to an EU ruling. Although strictly because a core aspect of a PSB is to be universal, a subscription based channel which can discriminate who it serves could never be described as PSB.
Today's front page of the Times looks entirely like a thinly disguised pitch by $ky to control access to broadcast television through their technology.
Of course it will, Rupert Murdoch would love nothing more than for the BBC to be placed behind a paywall he controls. No doubt if such a scenario happens, he'll also push for 100% of BSkyB again now that the phone hacking scandal is a distant memory. No doubt at the same time he'll entice the other free-to-air channels behind such a paywall too, and I suspect ITV under Adam Crozier will more than accommodate him. And the other main channels will also be likely to be handed financial incentives to place their content behind a paywall.
Murdoch has prior experience of this, he was partially responsible for the effective paywalling of free-to-air(/view) English channels on the ASTRA satellite in 1993, the most successful business move for BSkyB after gaining Premier League rights. The paywalling of content leading to the end of Freeview and Freesat would be a massive gain for him.
They're not weird, (well they are) they just want you to pay the going rate individually for each and every service you use. So if you haven't the money, tough. I always prefer the Big society approach. If every child had to be educated in the same system, If everyone was treated in the NHS. access to the same legal advise and so on, wouldn't we have a better place to live in? So instead of £145 a year for the BBC double that and possible more for the same service.
"Big Society" as put forth by the Conservatives is the opposite of what you seem to think it is.
It's code for "Small State", private sector everywhere. Charity for the poor and sick.
They could have used Videoguard (like Sky) which has never been hacked (and would have been a reasonably cheap option) as all Sky boxes use this anyway.
Comments
We live in the internet age where the loud minority often shout down the quiet (and often more polite) majority and where if the majority shout back they are seen or certainly often labelled as bullies; its the way of the 'new world' Anyone can mouth off on twitter, facebook, DS and forums in general et at.
Their opinions are often very obviously flawed but they will sometimes attract other 'followers' who perhaps can't express themselves in such succinct terms and at a similar level of understanding; like forum trolls they feed off each other whilst rarely satisfying their hunger and just 'snack' on their moment of glory and driving them onwards to posting more.
Hmm, Unfortunately that BBC propaganda graph is wrong (no surprise there then)
Iceland = ABOLISHED
As for other countries ....
Bulgaria = ABOLISHED
Cyprus = ABOLISHED
Finland = ABOLISHED
Hungary = ABOLISHED
Malta = ABOLISHED
Netherlands = ABOLISHED
Australia = ABOLISHED
India = ABOLISHED
Malaya = ABOLISHED
New Zealand = ABOLISHED
Portugal = ABOLISHED
But you can only watch Netflix when they put it online? You don't dictate the initial broadcast date do you? A bit like VOD from many terrestrial channels I thought or have I missed something? Netlix and on demand TV put things up and takes things down on a whim so whats the real difference? Silly me, more POD with Netflix (Pap On Demand) which may fudge your choice when overwhelmed at the content available.
In yours and the BBCs it is - but is not law - only a BBC guideline
As you say Council Tax has a law that compels them to check annualy, as do some others -
but not the BBC
Wiki has a longer list of LF countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
Of those who have got rid of lf all but NZ gave replaced it with direct subvention from the government.
For the uk the government stops collecting the LF ....
In other countries the broadcaster had to stop collecting its income,
Just nite that the BBC like most other PSB's has commercial income... About25%
I personally would welcome such a system, whereby all channels were blocked on all TVs unless a smart card was inserted allowing the channels to be unencrypted.
With the government taking the responsibility of funding the implementation of the system and ensuring that all TV Licence holding households got enough cards for all of their TVs, at no extra cost to the householders.
You can keep banging on about a subscription BBC, but it is nothing more than a fantasy. A subscription BBC would not work, if such a subscription did work you can guarantee it would have been done by one of the commercial broadcasters by now.
Use of any of the on-demand content services, iPlayer, 4OD Netflix etc, do not require a Licence, but the use of a PVR does, as the PVR records the programmes as it is broadcast which does require one.
Also remember that the LF iis a government charge
And the BBC as a whole not just TV is mainly funded by it ..
Of the LF £103 goes to TV ...
But the LF also pays fir non BBC things like Bband rollout, s4c and local TV set up.
Yes, because ITV is such a bastion of high-quality programming that their entire top ten is either soaps or reality shows.
You can, of course, legally do so. But it's certainly morally wrong to not contribute to the things you're watching.
You do need a TVL to use a PVR.
And yet there is zero actual evidence of this.
Very-much so in this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
And you'll find many governments just increased taxation to fund the loss of direct license revenue; I'm in favour or some form of direct taxation to fund the beeb my self
It should be noted the terrible quality of TV in the countries that have abolished their licence as well.
I believe it was Greg Dyke, when he was the DG who pushed for the FTA Freeview box after ITV Digital went belly up (due to their SECA encryption system being too easy to crack with bent cards).
I could be wrong here, but I recall that the BBC did an internal circulated survey which showed that only 19% of LF holders would bother if only the BBC channels went onto subscripton only.
They could have used Videoguard (like Sky) which has never been hacked (and would have been a reasonably cheap option) as all Sky boxes use this anyway.
They also could have also put a CAM slot in to every Freeview box, bought cams from NDS and then make all the BBC channels and S4C go behind a paywall, with each card being married to one box - the more TVs you have the more cards you would have to buy (at a reduced rate)
This would I believe, have been a more practical solution to the BBC funding problem - rather than charge everyone the same amount (rich or poor) as now. It could have been tied to Council Tax Benefit - with the government subsidising the cards for the poorest.
must be in want of a better argument.
Such a claim does not lie comfortably alongside
Murdoch has prior experience of this, he was partially responsible for the effective paywalling of free-to-air(/view) English channels on the ASTRA satellite in 1993, the most successful business move for BSkyB after gaining Premier League rights. The paywalling of content leading to the end of Freeview and Freesat would be a massive gain for him.
"Big Society" as put forth by the Conservatives is the opposite of what you seem to think it is.
It's code for "Small State", private sector everywhere. Charity for the poor and sick.
i.e. the 19th century
Phone-hacking trial: Coulson pressed me to keep quiet, Goodman claims.
State handout - Welfare
Non-state handout - Charity
The main difference being one is funded by taxation the other by donations.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention - perhaps you should do the same regarding politics and the BBC
Any chance you could possibly answer my points, with your point of view - rather from trying to antagonise me
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1940804
Yes the whole thing must have been done for a laugh. Obviously.