What and disrupt vested interests? It's only because we are in a BBC related thread of course and any other industry is rife with such in the UK but here goes...
When I sold up down here in June 2013 I cancelled my TV License payment card (I was on benefits) and paid up any arrears outstanding stating my moving out date and that I would be moving to a property I was not responsible for paying a TV License fee at (after explaining the ins and outs of a ducks arse to a very nice young lacky at the TV License quango/made up industry/ cash cow). After a couple of days I received a letter confirming everything was in order, or so I thought. Imagine my surprise at 7.30 one evening in October I get a call from the licensing people on my mobile at my brothers house to inquire as to why I had not paid my license up to that date and that I was in current payment arrears. Now I am not a believer in the TV license, I have had run ins on here with the usual supporters of it but I am a believer in the fact that the lacky on the other end of the line is only doing his or her crappy job. After discussing the anatomy of the rectum, (internal and external) of the Anatidae family of birds, I started getting rather more disturbed with the questioning, along the lines of "who owns the property you are currently staying in?", "do they have a valid license?". At this point I told them that was in fact was none of MY business. They were insistent to a point that my brother who had been unavoidably listening in, whilst trying to watch the tele, leaned over took the phone off me and told them "yes I have a license please fuck off I am trying to watch the fucking TV", phone down.
How much did all this shitty pointless procedure cost?
Scrap the TV license, sack everyone involved in it's collection, after all they are probably working somewhere in Scotland on a help desk and can't wait to wave us goodbye by all accounts. IF it has to be funded publicly, not convinced but there you go, fund it from general taxation OR if not make them go commercial.
Well, taking as read that whilst your dream of making tax collection more efficient is marvellous, it isn't actually going to happen in the real world. So given that, how do you propose to fund the BBC Fiiish?
Fiish is actually making a valid point; if video killed the radio star then the Internet is currently beating TV to a pulp.
How many discussions about TV on this site often mention Netflix? I'm enjoying my lunch in a coffee shop but I'm typing this on a smartphone that's HD capable and has Netflix installed.
I use Amazon Prime.. And as of this week I now have another massive library of media to choose from; as they bundle there own On Demand platform on to my account for free.
The BBC knows this; iPlayer was a huge success and came out before its competitors. This is evolution sadly, but it needs to be embraced.
Why should I pay for a "TV License"? I don't watch TV. It's an outdated concept.
I consume a lot of BBC media, and at times I do feel shafted by them, but I know I get my moneys worth... Just not through TV.
Their services are too wide to be paid for under the umbrella of a "TV Licence". Everybody in the UK benefits from the BBC, love them or hate them. Politically I think they're abysmal at times - but I still know I get value.
Scrap the TV license and come forward with an alternative. Consider if it was collected by HMRC - the BBC immediately save £125,000,000 of lost revenue on... Ermmm... Revenue protection.
The price wouldn't have to rise, and it could put these "I don't watch so I won't pay" arguments to sleep - you may not watch but you benefit.
The BBC isn't just a broadcaster like ITV or Sky, it's a service covering multiple mediums and platforms targeting everyone in the UK. It's free of commercial interest and is often there in times of emergency.
If it can continue being a commercial success abroad (In Sweden I had BBC Worldwide on all the time, and despite making Dave look current, the locals we're saying how much they enjoyed Top Gear and even a few older comedies. Look at the US and see how they view Doctor Who, Top Gear and so on..) and then streamline it's home based revenue then I see no reason why it can't continue being a success story.
As we've all said on here - the BBC offers some unique programmes, especially on BBC4, and these alone are something that only the BBC seem to be offering. The resale values of their portfolio as a whole must be pretty impressive too - and they seem to resell a fair few of their catalogue.
I'm not their biggest fan by any means, but we're pretty lucky.
As I said to Fiiish, I tend to agree. You also suggest there should be an alternative to the licence fee, but fail to come up with one yourself LR. I am intrigued as to how the BBC shafts you?
As I said to Fiiish, I tend to agree. You also suggest there should be an alternative to the licence fee, but fail to come up with one yourself LR. I am intrigued as to how the BBC shafts you?
I never claimed to have an answer, there are a great many things I think are hideously inefficient but I don't have answers to them! (If I did I'd most likely be giving Simon Church private shooting tuition!)
It's clear that passing 125m a year away trying to recoup license fees is pretty inefficient. It's also clear to see that media and broadcasting are moving at an incredible rate - and revenue streams (and, subsequently, collection) need to move with the business model as a whole.
As for being shafted by the BBC, I'm not - I just said it feels like that. Namely knowing license fee money goes in to a great number of programmes but after an initial viewing and 14 days on iPlayer they are then sold off to other channels - often those you need a subscription for!
I can appreciate it's revenue for the BBC, and that the development of new shows probably relies as much upon the revenue from sales as it does license fee money... Still doesn't mean it doesn't annoy me at times!
Ok, solution 1: move the income tax thresholds for each band down a few bob. You will barely notice a few quid missing from your monthly paycheck but in total will raise enough money to find the Beeb. Lucky Reds has got it spot-on. My argument is a lot of people don't pay the licence fee but still benefit from the BBC, whereas quite a few people pay the fee but barely use BBC services compared to the other TV they had available.
Thought experiment - imagine the licence fee worked like Sky - if you didn't pay, you won't receive any of the BBC channels. I reckon loads of people would happily turn off their broadcast link to BBC and save 150 quid a year (I would), especially given you can watch it on iPlayer anyway on an unplugged laptop without paying the fee and you would be doing nothing wrong.
I was only pointing out how ridiculous the current set up is. Not really sure what else to add, there isn't a single convincing argument to keep the licence fee in its current form. No one in this thread seems to have made a case for it.
I guess you didn't read the part where I pointed out taxes don't need to raised, only made more efficient to increase tax take. But if we didn't do that, then reducing the threshold for higher or basic income tax by only a matter of pounds could easily raise the necessary revenue. I suggest next time you actually read posts before making pointless sarky comments.
Bournemout hAddick - cherry picking a bit as those are events that don't even happen every year and a commercial broadcaster would pick them up if he BBC wasn't guaranteed them.
Like Algarve I actually agree with you it should be properly funded through general taxation. The problem is that no government of any colour wants to raise taxes if they can find another way of getting the same income without seemingly screwing over the electorate who would go bananas if the treasury stuck it on income tax for example. Taxes would also have to go up as there is simply not the slack in the system to find the necessary revenue otherwise imo.
Properly funded means also paying for the myriad of other ways to benefit from the BBC of course.
...and I wasn't been unnecessarily sarky, and the examples I gave were perfectly valid cases. Every year we have sporting, music or cultural events or breaking news of one sort or another and it is a nonsense to suggest that there are people paying their licensing fee and not watching any (or barely any as you are now saying) of it. IMO.
Ok, solution 1: move the income tax thresholds for each band down a few bob. You will barely notice a few quid missing from your monthly paycheck but in total will raise enough money to find the Beeb. Lucky Reds has got it spot-on. My argument is a lot of people don't pay the licence fee but still benefit from the BBC, whereas quite a few people pay the fee but barely use BBC services compared to the other TV they had available. .
So in other words what you mean in the real world, is raise taxes. Right.
The argument for keeping the tv licence quite simple: It is a guarantee that the government cannot cut the BBC's funding by stealth. Can you imagine what would happen if we had a system where the BBC was funded by tax? The next time there was a budget overspend or they needed extra cash to bail out some failing bank, or even when an incumbent government wanted to throw a few crumbs to the voting public prior to one of their quadrennial popularity contests, they'd be raiding the bank of BBC like their was no tomorrow. We've seen massive cuts in cultural spending recently and the nation is poorer for it. There needs to be a line in the sand that protects the BBC, and gives this remarkable institution the resources to continue to make and broadcast some of the best programmes in the world.
As for traditional tv's demise, reports of it's death have been greatly exaggerated. Research from BMRB shows that people are watching an average of 30 hours per week. The average viewer watches 12 more minutes of TV a day now than in 2003. Want to guess the percentage of tv watched on mobile devices in 2013? Go on, this is good. One and a half percent! Just to re-iterate, that's 1.5%. There's a long long way to go before such technology kills off traditional viewing. Whilst it is true that younger generations and commuters are viewing more on portable devices and there are a number of other media that people can use, this hasn't had such an impact on traditional tv viewing as has previously been forecast. The main reason being that we spend far more time staring at screens than we ever had. Ever wondered what happened to the kids that used to play in the street? Well, they're all at home now watching one type of black mirror or another. And you shouldn't understimate the numbers of grey viewers either; millions of them with nothing to do all day but watch Escape to the Country whilst worrying about how they're going to pay the gas bill. These people aren't all watching Netflix on their smartphones, they're watching Noel Edmonds on that daft phone.
Those that say telly is dead because people no longer watch the same programmes are barking up the wrong tree as well. They're right that it's no longer a cultural event (well not very often), but that's largely down to the number of channels. In the old days when there were only two or three channels, you could go to school knowing that half of your class would have watched exactly the same stuff as you. Nowadays when everyone has a dozen or more channels and many (perhaps most) have hundreds, that's not going to be the case very often. But that's not decline; that's diversity. Every now and again though a programme is aired that is watched by significantly large numbers. The most recent example of this occurred in the US earlier this week when the Oscars ceremony attracted it's biggest tv audience for ten years.
Finally, let's nail this lie about there being significant numbers of people who never watch BBC. 20% of all tv viewed is on just one channel, BBC1. A further 7% is BBC2. So that's just two BBC channels accounting for over a quarter of all viewed tv in the UK. Now, people aren't chained to one channel, they choose, they switch and they hop. So it's not just the same 27% of people watching BBC, everyone's at it. It's not just BBC1 and 2 either. Just look at the comments on this thread, there's hardly a person on here that doesn't know about BBC3 and BBC4. How do they know? - because they're watching these channels! Can we quantify this? Actually, yes we can. It's called viewing reach. The weekly viewing reach of BBC1 (final quarter 2013) is 81.5%. That means that in any given week, four fifths of all people who had watched tv had watched BBC1. Over a month it goes up to 94.1% and annual reach is 98.2%. The figures for BBC2 are 59.5%, 82.1% and 92.8% respectively. BBC3, so unpopular that they're axing it, has a reach of 27.1%, 55.3%, 78.1%. Then there's BBC4, BBC News, BBC Parliament, CBBC... Frankly the amount of people who never watch the BBC is so small, we could put them all in the same cab to watch endless downloads of Breaking Bad on their iPads.
We haven't even started talking about usage of other BBC services like radio and internet...yet.
The argument for keeping the tv licence quite simple: It is a guarantee that the government cannot cut the BBC's funding by stealth. Can you imagine what would happen if we had a system where the BBC was funded by tax? The next time there was a budget overspend or they needed extra cash to bail out some failing bank, or even when an incumbent government wanted to throw a few crumbs to the voting public prior to one of their quadrennial popularity contests, they'd be raiding the bank of BBC like their was no tomorrow. We've seen massive cuts in cultural spending recently and the nation is poorer for it. There needs to be a line in the sand that protects the BBC, and gives this remarkable institution the resources to continue to make and broadcast some of the best programmes in the world.
I agree this would be a good argument if it weren't for:
1) the fact that it costs hundreds of millions a year to administer and collect the TVL, not to mention the collective time people waste sorting it out whenever they move house or whatever. I don't think any reason is good enough to justify such a collossal waste of money.
2) the BBC's funding can already be cut by stealth and in fact already is - the TVL has been frozen, which in real terms means they are losing funding to whatever the rate of inflation is. Also, there is a slight fallacy in your argument that the Government directly funding the BBC amounts to there being a BBC bank that can be raided whenever the Government needs extra cash, much like how the NHS and schools aren't banks for the Government to raid. There are statutory instruments that could be put in place to set the BBC's funding and prevent it from being significantly increased or reduced without passing an Act of Parliament (similar to how the funding is already set through how the Government sets the licence fee). And lets be honest, no party is going to want to be the one trying to pass a law so the millions of voters would lose access to their favourite programmes and cultural gems such as Eastenders, Pointless, The Voice and Antiques Roadshow.
Otherwise I agreed with the majority of your post.
I dunno, here we are, in the middle of a post mortem of one of the most abject displays from Charlton in recent years (and there have been many !) - and you find the time to be able to post something about the BBC from the HuffPo ??!!
I dunno, here we are, in the middle of a post mortem of one of the most abject displays from Charlton in recent years (and there have been many !) - and you find the time to be able to post something about the BBC from the HuffPo ??!!
Does this somehow sum up our support ??
To be honest I am just sick of the Powell out comments, so decided to change to something more real worldy lol
ITV set to announce they have won the rights to show Family Guy, now u can look at this one of three ways.
1:ITV just outbid BBC, with no football they have more money than before
2:BBC already decided BBC3 will be online and think it might not be worth their while
3:Family Guy is one of the most highly watched programmes on BBC3, so BBC have thought we lose family guy BBC3'S ratings drop and they have a reason to make it online only
ITV set to announce they have won the rights to show Family Guy, now u can look at this one of three ways.
1:ITV just outbid BBC, with no football they have more money than before
2:BBC already decided BBC3 will be online and think it might not be worth their while
3:Family Guy is one of the most highly watched programmes on BBC3, so BBC have thought we lose family guy BBC3'S ratings drop and they have a reason to make it online only
Personally I think it is option 3
Never watched it so don't really care, but you're probably right.
Think BBC realised using BBC3 as a vehicle to finance and launch the works of journeymen and alternative comics and using Family Guy to draw viewers in doesn't really work when there are comedians on the Internet far better than what's on BBC3 and they're giving their work out for free.
ITV set to announce they have won the rights to show Family Guy, now u can look at this one of three ways.
1:ITV just outbid BBC, with no football they have more money than before
2:BBC already decided BBC3 will be online and think it might not be worth their while
3:Family Guy is one of the most highly watched programmes on BBC3, so BBC have thought we lose family guy BBC3'S ratings drop and they have a reason to make it online only
Personally I think it is option 3
Never watched it so don't really care, but you're probably right.
I think you'd like it Saidie, You'd need to watch a few episodes to get going, but I reckon you'll find it mildly amusing.
the feeling is that BBC wanted to axe it all together it will be online for a few weeks, and wont get the views(thanks to them losing Family Guy) and they will take it offline
Comments
When I sold up down here in June 2013 I cancelled my TV License payment card (I was on benefits) and paid up any arrears outstanding stating my moving out date and that I would be moving to a property I was not responsible for paying a TV License fee at (after explaining the ins and outs of a ducks arse to a very nice young lacky at the TV License quango/made up industry/ cash cow). After a couple of days I received a letter confirming everything was in order, or so I thought. Imagine my surprise at 7.30 one evening in October I get a call from the licensing people on my mobile at my brothers house to inquire as to why I had not paid my license up to that date and that I was in current payment arrears. Now I am not a believer in the TV license, I have had run ins on here with the usual supporters of it but I am a believer in the fact that the lacky on the other end of the line is only doing his or her crappy job. After discussing the anatomy of the rectum, (internal and external) of the Anatidae family of birds, I started getting rather more disturbed with the questioning, along the lines of "who owns the property you are currently staying in?", "do they have a valid license?". At this point I told them that was in fact was none of MY business. They were insistent to a point that my brother who had been unavoidably listening in, whilst trying to watch the tele, leaned over took the phone off me and told them "yes I have a license please fuck off I am trying to watch the fucking TV", phone down.
How much did all this shitty pointless procedure cost?
Scrap the TV license, sack everyone involved in it's collection, after all they are probably working somewhere in Scotland on a help desk and can't wait to wave us goodbye by all accounts. IF it has to be funded publicly, not convinced but there you go, fund it from general taxation OR if not make them go commercial.
How many discussions about TV on this site often mention Netflix? I'm enjoying my lunch in a coffee shop but I'm typing this on a smartphone that's HD capable and has Netflix installed.
I use Amazon Prime.. And as of this week I now have another massive library of media to choose from; as they bundle there own On Demand platform on to my account for free.
The BBC knows this; iPlayer was a huge success and came out before its competitors. This is evolution sadly, but it needs to be embraced.
Why should I pay for a "TV License"? I don't watch TV. It's an outdated concept.
I consume a lot of BBC media, and at times I do feel shafted by them, but I know I get my moneys worth... Just not through TV.
Their services are too wide to be paid for under the umbrella of a "TV Licence". Everybody in the UK benefits from the BBC, love them or hate them. Politically I think they're abysmal at times - but I still know I get value.
Scrap the TV license and come forward with an alternative. Consider if it was collected by HMRC - the BBC immediately save £125,000,000 of lost revenue on... Ermmm... Revenue protection.
The price wouldn't have to rise, and it could put these "I don't watch so I won't pay" arguments to sleep - you may not watch but you benefit.
The BBC isn't just a broadcaster like ITV or Sky, it's a service covering multiple mediums and platforms targeting everyone in the UK. It's free of commercial interest and is often there in times of emergency.
If it can continue being a commercial success abroad (In Sweden I had BBC Worldwide on all the time, and despite making Dave look current, the locals we're saying how much they enjoyed Top Gear and even a few older comedies. Look at the US and see how they view Doctor Who, Top Gear and so on..) and then streamline it's home based revenue then I see no reason why it can't continue being a success story.
As we've all said on here - the BBC offers some unique programmes, especially on BBC4, and these alone are something that only the BBC seem to be offering. The resale values of their portfolio as a whole must be pretty impressive too - and they seem to resell a fair few of their catalogue.
I'm not their biggest fan by any means, but we're pretty lucky.
It's clear that passing 125m a year away trying to recoup license fees is pretty inefficient. It's also clear to see that media and broadcasting are moving at an incredible rate - and revenue streams (and, subsequently, collection) need to move with the business model as a whole.
As for being shafted by the BBC, I'm not - I just said it feels like that. Namely knowing license fee money goes in to a great number of programmes but after an initial viewing and 14 days on iPlayer they are then sold off to other channels - often those you need a subscription for!
I can appreciate it's revenue for the BBC, and that the development of new shows probably relies as much upon the revenue from sales as it does license fee money... Still doesn't mean it doesn't annoy me at times!
Thought experiment - imagine the licence fee worked like Sky - if you didn't pay, you won't receive any of the BBC channels. I reckon loads of people would happily turn off their broadcast link to BBC and save 150 quid a year (I would), especially given you can watch it on iPlayer anyway on an unplugged laptop without paying the fee and you would be doing nothing wrong.
Properly funded means also paying for the myriad of other ways to benefit from the BBC of course.
...and I wasn't been unnecessarily sarky, and the examples I gave were perfectly valid cases. Every year we have sporting, music or cultural events or breaking news of one sort or another and it is a nonsense to suggest that there are people paying their licensing fee and not watching any (or barely any as you are now saying) of it. IMO.
As for traditional tv's demise, reports of it's death have been greatly exaggerated. Research from BMRB shows that people are watching an average of 30 hours per week. The average viewer watches 12 more minutes of TV a day now than in 2003. Want to guess the percentage of tv watched on mobile devices in 2013? Go on, this is good. One and a half percent! Just to re-iterate, that's 1.5%. There's a long long way to go before such technology kills off traditional viewing. Whilst it is true that younger generations and commuters are viewing more on portable devices and there are a number of other media that people can use, this hasn't had such an impact on traditional tv viewing as has previously been forecast. The main reason being that we spend far more time staring at screens than we ever had. Ever wondered what happened to the kids that used to play in the street? Well, they're all at home now watching one type of black mirror or another. And you shouldn't understimate the numbers of grey viewers either; millions of them with nothing to do all day but watch Escape to the Country whilst worrying about how they're going to pay the gas bill. These people aren't all watching Netflix on their smartphones, they're watching Noel Edmonds on that daft phone.
Those that say telly is dead because people no longer watch the same programmes are barking up the wrong tree as well. They're right that it's no longer a cultural event (well not very often), but that's largely down to the number of channels. In the old days when there were only two or three channels, you could go to school knowing that half of your class would have watched exactly the same stuff as you. Nowadays when everyone has a dozen or more channels and many (perhaps most) have hundreds, that's not going to be the case very often. But that's not decline; that's diversity. Every now and again though a programme is aired that is watched by significantly large numbers. The most recent example of this occurred in the US earlier this week when the Oscars ceremony attracted it's biggest tv audience for ten years.
Finally, let's nail this lie about there being significant numbers of people who never watch BBC. 20% of all tv viewed is on just one channel, BBC1. A further 7% is BBC2. So that's just two BBC channels accounting for over a quarter of all viewed tv in the UK. Now, people aren't chained to one channel, they choose, they switch and they hop. So it's not just the same 27% of people watching BBC, everyone's at it. It's not just BBC1 and 2 either. Just look at the comments on this thread, there's hardly a person on here that doesn't know about BBC3 and BBC4. How do they know? - because they're watching these channels! Can we quantify this? Actually, yes we can. It's called viewing reach. The weekly viewing reach of BBC1 (final quarter 2013) is 81.5%. That means that in any given week, four fifths of all people who had watched tv had watched BBC1. Over a month it goes up to 94.1% and annual reach is 98.2%. The figures for BBC2 are 59.5%, 82.1% and 92.8% respectively. BBC3, so unpopular that they're axing it, has a reach of 27.1%, 55.3%, 78.1%. Then there's BBC4, BBC News, BBC Parliament, CBBC... Frankly the amount of people who never watch the BBC is so small, we could put them all in the same cab to watch endless downloads of Breaking Bad on their iPads.
We haven't even started talking about usage of other BBC services like radio and internet...yet.
1) the fact that it costs hundreds of millions a year to administer and collect the TVL, not to mention the collective time people waste sorting it out whenever they move house or whatever. I don't think any reason is good enough to justify such a collossal waste of money.
2) the BBC's funding can already be cut by stealth and in fact already is - the TVL has been frozen, which in real terms means they are losing funding to whatever the rate of inflation is. Also, there is a slight fallacy in your argument that the Government directly funding the BBC amounts to there being a BBC bank that can be raided whenever the Government needs extra cash, much like how the NHS and schools aren't banks for the Government to raid. There are statutory instruments that could be put in place to set the BBC's funding and prevent it from being significantly increased or reduced without passing an Act of Parliament (similar to how the funding is already set through how the Government sets the licence fee). And lets be honest, no party is going to want to be the one trying to pass a law so the millions of voters would lose access to their favourite programmes and cultural gems such as Eastenders, Pointless, The Voice and Antiques Roadshow.
Otherwise I agreed with the majority of your post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/09/helen-flanagan-strictly-come-dancing_n_4928781.html?ncid=webmail3
Does this somehow sum up our support ??
1:ITV just outbid BBC, with no football they have more money than before
2:BBC already decided BBC3 will be online and think it might not be worth their while
3:Family Guy is one of the most highly watched programmes on BBC3, so BBC have thought we lose family guy BBC3'S ratings drop and they have a reason to make it online only
Personally I think it is option 3
Family Guy will be on ITV 2 from this Autumn
think that confirms the end of BBC3 Family Guy was their most watched programme
it will be online for a few weeks, and wont get the views(thanks to them losing Family Guy) and they will take it offline
why is there a need to pay for it at all?
People keep saying great value etc but make it self sufficient like all other media outlets.