Read more.Quote:
At the same time it hesitates to reveal which TV stars make more than the UK PM.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
At the same time it hesitates to reveal which TV stars make more than the UK PM.
The salary disclosure news seems to be a bit of a smokescreen to the real news of the License changes.
I don't have a TV license, never needed one. The only BBC shows I've watched recently were Top Gear and Robot Wars, and as good (or not) as they were, not worth £145 (over £10 per hour).
Would be interesting to see how they will enforce it, is the iPlayer app going to require your license number? Sounds the most plausible, but then can they stop license "sharing"? Are they going to just blanket request details of all the IPs that have connected from every UK ISP?
I think, unfortunately for the BBC, the 2% of households that this will affect are the kind of people who exploit loopholes, they will almost certainly find one of the other untraceable ways of viewing BBC content.
I found that don't really watch the BBC/iPlayer anymore. I occasionally watch something on BBC4 in the evening, but if I miss anything I just go without now. There are plenty of documentaries among other things on youtube.
Currently watching tv without a license, but I'm justifying it by the idea that I was charged for over a year of having a license where I didn't have a tv or watch any bbc content online and they wouldn't give me my money back.
Consider it fearmongering that they will come and check who's using it and who's not. Never actually heard of anyone who has had an inspector come round.
BTW, Brian Cox did a new show called 'Forces of Nature' which I found to be excellent.
Granted the BBC does make some good Nature and Documentary programs. But honestly I can't remember the last time I sat down and watched TV in the traditional sense. TV is dead. The BBC will need to modernise and use advertising or risk dying off too.
Err... How's that then? The only way that's going to work is against APs that are transmitting in the clear.Quote:
From 1st September UK residents to watch non-live BBC content via the iPlayer app, on any platform, will be targeted by the BBC's fleet of detector vans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wazzickle
This I do agree on (not seen Forces of Nature yet but hear that it's good), however they seem to release most of the good documentaries on DVD/Bluray. I have a lot of BBC docs that way (picked up for peanuts online, and I can watch them in high quality when I want).Quote:
Originally Posted by EvZ_2
I beleive the TV license is outdate in this day and age and as for monetary value you get sod all for the fee you pay, But who gets half of this money you pay its the bigwigs at the top of the BBC it pays there over inflated wages..... But hey who cares
So, already paying for Amazon Prime and Netflix, and I have a TV licence. But, I'd love the BBC to make their entire back catalogue available through iplayer as well - yes, we've already paid for those shows, and I don't want to buy them outright. iplayer needs to have a historic element as well as a current element.
As opposed to a Sky^ subscription where the money goes to pay over-inflated wages...Quote:
Originally Posted by c12038
(^Other subscription services contributing to over-inflated wages are also available)
I love the beeb personally. Cbeebies presents the only real source of advert and american free TV for my 2 year daughter. My niece and nephew who have sky TV have american accents all the time and have christmas lists as long as your arm all based off of TV advertising they pay for! I also don't know who else would produce the likes of doctor who and robot wars in the UK if not for them. We really need a counterbalance to all the american shows and reality TV of the other channels.
Hopefully, this would stop ex-Tories like Chris Patten milking the gravy train!Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
The problem with a subscription service is that most people would end up paying more once you factor in collection costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyd223
That would be good, but I believe the BBC sells on a lot of previous content to third parties, so I doubt they could provide anything near to a full back catalog.
I'm sure we all know that the parliamentary salary is the PM's only source of income, NOT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexus
+1, mines 9Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesemp
Couldn't disagree more, for the amount you pay the BBC offers excellent value for money, be that radio, tv or online.Quote:
Originally Posted by c12038
The BBC only offers value if you consume its content. If you don't consume BBC content then you're just getting screwed. Therefore the license system is inherently unfair since it legally requires that non-users subsidise users. And since the low cost technology exists to make personal subscription to content accessible, the license model is, in fact, outdated.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
I like some of their radio programmes (primarily radio 4) and nature documentaries, but I'll be buggered if I'll ever pay for a TV licence again. Can't see why they don't just introduce a Netflix-style pay scheme for everyone (international viewers included). Antiquated BBC.
Ha, what a load of crap. If it is true, then their parents are clearly letting them watch too much TV (and apparently they also never let them interact with anyone). And you cite Dr Who and Robot Wars as great British shows? PFf, to each their own I suppose. The issue as I see it is that the BBC doesn't give you a choice. If you own a TV and don't want to watch anything on the BBC, you still have to pay the licence fee (which is completely unfair). A subscription service would be far better. The only reason it hasn't come about is because people (the ollllllllld in particular) don't like change.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesemp
And how, pray tell, am I supposed to input a license code on a radio? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Vigil
Actually I get a bit hacked off with the folks that bleat "but I don't watch the BBC so why do I need a TV license". Given that I've had two weeks of only being able to access American TV, I'm distinctly glad that the Beeb is there. And the universal provision (in theory we all pay the same) seems fair. The alternative is a horrible mismash of licensing models and software and I just don't want that. Heck the iPlayer app is bad enough. :wallbash:
I do wonder though if the new iPlayer setup means that my old faithful get_iplayer is going to get screwed up. Be a major shame since my TV no longer does iPlayer and it can be a bit hit or miss on the Sky box.
Closing thought, while I'm still willing to give the Beeb the money they need, I'm quite unhappy about the huge salaries that are being offered for the "stars" and especially the management. For the 'talent' surely there's a career benefit in working for one of the global major players, and for management, NO ONE should be earning more than the PM.
Currently have Netflix and NowTV on trial, both will be getting binned at the end of the trial period. Have also just cancelled Sky, had them on stacked cashback so they ended up paying me to use their service, will not resub to them even ta £10 a month. The quality and range of BBC documentaries is incredible, especially when you delve in to Iplayer and give some of the more unusual stuff a go.
Apply DVB subscription access technology to DAB?Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
People shouldn't be upset about being involuntarily charged money for something they don't use?Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
That's nice. But I don't recall anyone calling for Broadcasting House being levelled. Merely reevaluating the means by which they're funded.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
It's only fair if you consume the content. If not, you're subsidising content consumers against your will and getting nothing in return beyond the nostalgic glow of patriotism, or some such.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Assuming you don't exclusively consume BBC content, in which case, may God have mercy on you, then you're going to have to deal with that brain damage anyway. Adding an extra subscription into the mix isn't the end of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Nice way to discount my views... As a matter of fact they probably do watch too much TV but find me many children who don't! Its more a case of odd americanisms creeping in but it is noticeable since they got into Sky TV content. I maintain the fact that british TV (other than reality stuff and the odd comedy) would just disappear without the bbc. There is no easy profit in it so no one will do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigil
Why wouldn't you want to consume it's content, it's the best available in the UK? The vast majority of the population use it daily.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
It's not unfair, it's a public service thats part of our civil society. You are free to use it any time you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Should those who can afford their own medical care be able to not contribute to the NHS because they won't use it? Serious question, where would that leave public services?
No, it keeps it within the means of the majority of people who live in the UK. You only have to look at the cost of a basic sky subscription to see why it's excellent value for money.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
get_iplayer - I thought I was the only one... :-)
A person could have a number of reasons to not consume its content. They could simply not like it. They could be abroad for most of the year. They could be a cable cutter. I could go on. But needless to say, there are reasons, and all of them are completely reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Is it? Oh dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Which is still much less than everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
And it'll carry on being a public service that's part of your civil society with or without the license. Nobody is saying nuke the BBC from orbit.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
It's only 'free' to use as long as you have a license. If you own a TV, you're 'free' to pay for a license whether or not you consume BBC content. So no, it's not free in any sense of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Will you die/be crippled if you don't get BBC service? I don't see how they're in any way comparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
It would still be in the means of the majority of people who live in the UK if its funding method was changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Sky is a private company. They're a useful guideline as far as what's possible is concerned, but hardly equivalent for costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
I think a lot of people seriously underestimate how important the BBC is.
Historically, this share of culture belonged to the aristocracy, distributed via its institutions, and your access to it was diluted according to your proximity to the aristocracy. Someone like me would have had a very hard time knowing their world, but now I can know what they know and innately know how to manoeuvre in their social space. I've been able to adapt to structures that might otherwise shut me out.
The BBC has grown to give that to all of us. I didn't have a great education and without doubt the BBC has taught me more than school ever did, both in direct learning and from hearing mentions of interesting things in passing which I've then investigated further myself. It's not just the TV, but also the excellent radio service. The BBC's innovations in streaming media reinforced that, by allowing us to pick from the week/month's broadcasts, so providing us with great factual, dramatic and literary broadcasts. That's before we even talk about the music of the BBC: classical, folk, jungle, grime, hip-hop, indie, reggae, soul, and on and on... whatever you want is likely to be covered.
A huge part of what we fumblingly try to call "Britishness" is spread between us by the BBC. You might not partake in it directly, but you do indirectly. Take it away, and we'd lose a lot of cohesion. Sky isn't going to fill that void for you.
I'm confused, why are you arguing as if those opposed to the license system are out to destroy the BBC? The BBC isn't synonymous with the license. The license is just a mechanism of funding. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Otherhand
It's just another tax. I got to say, it always rubs me up the wrong way when I hear the phrase "the unique way the BBC is funded".....Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Poor value? At less than a pint of beer a week? :secret:Quote:
Originally Posted by c12038
Then I'm sure you won't mind donating me £140 a year for nothing, after all its only a pint of beer a week!Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Many people do not watch BBC, yet feel cornered into paying the fee, especially after the 4th or 5th visit you get to check your not watching it.....so that it becomes a tax against being hassled every month by detector vans.
Except you aren't providing me any service for that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
I don't donate a licence fee, I pay it because I own a Television. It is an optional tax for a service I choose to receive.
And in that sense it is unlike any other tax, as I can't opt out of paying for the NHS, even if I chose to use private medical services, and neither can I choose to opt out of paying for the state educational system, even if I have my children educated privately.
Because you don't get this kind of service unless you employ some kind of taxation. A commercially funded service could not have this breadth and scope, and its commercial needs would trump its directives.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
That's kinda his point.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Sure, but owning a TV isn't a service, it's possession of property.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
It's also an optional tax for a service you don't choose to receive. So... not optional at all, unless you chuck out your TV altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Because taxes magically make everything cheaper? Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your entertainment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Otherhand
There are many reasons why people wouldn't use the NHS, all of them are reasonable, should they be allowed to abstain from paying in to support the service? If so, how well do you think it'd work?Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Undeniably so.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
But is more than the minority!Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Perhaps, but like all public services, it's the best funding method to cater for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
You can own a TV and not have a license. Regardless, consider it one of those things (like the NHS) where you pay even if you're not ill. Then you'll feel better about it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
They're entirely comparable, because they're both public services that operate under the same founding principles. You just don't like the comparison, because it puts your point in perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Disagree entirely. You can't have valuable public services at the mercy of a system where people could simply decide not to pay one month or so every year. How well do you think other public services (like the NHS) would do if they had no idea of the funding from month to month?Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Agree'd, you pay far far more, still have adverts and get very little educational, inspirational or cultural value.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
There are probably many people who pay for their own healthcare, soQuote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
"Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your healthcare?"
is equally true.
Plenty of people have no children:-
"Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your childs education?"
I don't know if you have children, but you can probably see where I'm going with this......
Well, if you are going to be pedantic, I pay a fee to have a device installed and capable of receiving broadcast media. Possessing a TV or other device that isn't installed for receiving broadcast media doesn't require a licence.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Of course, the BBC could be funded out of general taxation, then everyone pays regardless (assuming you are a tax payer)
But the point of a publicly funded broadcaster is that it has the freedom (and in the BBCs case, remit) to produce content that has some appeal to everyone at some time.
Not everything the BBC broadcasts appeals to me, but it probably appeals to someone, somewhere.
That may be a minority interest that would not be considered by a commercially funded broadcaster because they wouldn't get the return on investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Comparing an entertainment service to health and education?
Of course, they should all be painted with the same brush /sarcasm.
It's called an analogy, or an example it helps get a point across. /sarcasmQuote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
Because you need a service that has as little fear as possible. The BBC has been hurt considerably by the fear in which the Tory government has placed it, but it would be a 24/7 thing for a commercial business that lived or died on the whims of subscribers and advertisers.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
And no, I don't mind forcing a minority to pay for something they never use. That's the nature of taxation. I keep myself fit, I eat well, I barely drink, but I don't begrudge people needing the NHS when I don't, be it through bad luck or bad decisions. I would vote against the wars we've involved ourselves in if I could, but my taxes will be spent on weapons and fighting anyway. I don't use libraries and buy my own books, but I'm happy to pay for those because their existence is a net plus for all of society. I don't have a degree, but my taxes need to be spent on universities for the common good. Public sports services, roads (I don't drive), swimming pools (I can't swim), coast guards (I don't go in the sea), the list goes on.
An opt-out NHS? More or less the same as it does now, only with a somewhat smaller pool of payees and patients. Does the NHS start buckling every time someone dies on them and stops paying national insurance?Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Sounds like Britain's media standards are horrible, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
So it's OK to rob a minority because they're smaller and weaker?Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Is it? The problem with involuntary taxation schemes like the TV license is the tax spenders have little to no accountability to the payees. We put up with a certain amount of waste and crappy service with national insurance because it's a safety net that you'd be royally screwed without if it weren't there. If the BBC weren't there, you'd be forced to shed a patriotic tear, and flick between all the other channels that are broadcasting OTA, or maybe try that new internet thingy. Not exactly the end of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Sure, and it'll look great sitting in your room as a useless decoration.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Why would I consider it that? If I get hit by a car will I have to watch Casualty to fix my broken ribs? If I get cancer will watching Eastenders send it into remission?Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Vaguely, in terms of means of funding, kinda... but it's still a red herring. Healthcare is an essential service. TV broadcasting isn't an essential service. Hell it's not even the principle means by which we receive information anymore. We may as well establish a national internet service provider.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
It's only valuable to the people who care to use it. Those people are still going to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
So they don't get service for a month? Well, that's their choice, that's kinda the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
They'd squander less money on administration? But as I already pointed out, not all public services are created equal, nor have equal importance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
Yeah on Sky, but we're not talking about Sky. A state chartered company is a very different beast than a Plc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyL
That question is kind of answered by the post below imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
As otherhand suggests, if we didn't have "TV tax" then the shortfall in funding has to be found by other means. I'm utterly convinced that every time our never-sufficiently-damned governments cut, sorry "reallocate", license fee money BBC Worldwide etc gets more aggressive in its sales pitches - and I really object to buying programmes that I've already paid for via the license fee. Shysters!Quote:
Originally Posted by Otherhand
Interesting aside, I'd assumed that programmes were purely picked on the anticipated size of their audience - so basically LCD. However, according to a fascinating talk I heard by one of Sky's team, there's also quite a few programmes that are regarded as "niche" yet get aired because the small audience that they draw in is also attractive to high value advertisers. It's something that didn't occur to me previously. However, from the way that the Beeb is going I'm pretty certain that when money is tight that they'll draw back into only doing reality shows and buying in dramas from the US - just look at ITV.
Disclaimer: Sky pays my bills, but they've nothing to do with the opinions expressed herein
You're grasping at straws now....Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Not really, I think they're pretty high. Go abroad and watch some TV funded by subscriptions/adds... it's generally pretty poor or niche.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Lol, yeah.. it's called democracy dude! While the majority want it, the minority will have to lump it.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Again, you could say the same for every public service. Unfortunately, in a civil society you sometimes have to pay for things you don't use.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Clutching at straws.. AGAIN! You only need a license for live TV, so you can use it to watch anything other than live TV. Hardly a useless decoration.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
I think you're missing the point, which is that for a fixed fee that pretty much everyone can afford you get a world class service that caters for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Not all public services *must* be essential services, they still have value. As for a national internet service provider, if it was cheap and competitive in the way the BBC clearly is, why not.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Yeah, because the costs of all public services are easily bourne just by those who would use it, aren't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
No, it shows you have completely missed the point!Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
In your view, I doubt someone who relies on a lesser used public service to survive would agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
We're talking about what the alternative would be, so that includes Sky... which IMHO offers far lower value for money.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
On the latter point, a TV can be used licence-free for watching pre-recorded material, like a film or TV series on disc, or for playing games on your Xbox/PS4 etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
So, there are valid reasons to possess a TV that don't involve needing a licence.
On the "public service" point, it's about the principle, where the BBC does provide a basic tV service ehich, for some people, is sufficient. I know people that can't afford subscriptoon services, and don't went anything much more than basic "inform, educate and entertain".
But the counterpoint to that, where the NHS was used as an example, is just one of countless services and the NHS is probably not even the brst example. What about libraries? Everybody that pays taxes used to fund them, be it council tax or others, funds libraries regardless of whether they use them.
Or there's council parks. They have to be maintained and we all pay whether we use them or not.
Or education? My parents paid taxes for my education snd that of my generation, but maybe those of my generation that don't have kids should getcan income tax rebate because they're paying for schools and universities that they'll never send non-existent kids to.
At least with the TV licence you do have the option to not consume TV services, and not pay a licence, or to only consume content, BBC or otherwise, by buying films, TV series, documentaries etc, on disc.
Or borrowing those discs from your local library.
The public service argument is that many services, from libraries to roads and rail, from TV to emergency (fire, police, ambulance, etc), from a nuclear submarine fleet to parks and gardens, and education, socisl services, care homes, probation services, and the list goes on and on, are all designated by government (that we elected) as desirable to be provided as public services, where provision is available to all, should you need or desire to take advantage of them, whether you choose to, or need to, or not.
You're already given a break with TV over most or all other public services in that you can at least opt-out of the cost by opting out of using the service. There are quite a few public services I've never needed, and probably never will, but we don't (often) moan about them because they're funded in less overt ways, and we don't notice it. The thing about a TV licence is that it gets our attention because we have to pay it separately, explicitly. so we notice.
If they dumped the licence and buried the cost in general taxation, maybe by increasing NI rates or reducing income tax personsl allowances, there wouldn't be a fraction of the bitching tgat goes on about the licence. Or not after the first few years and the initial outrage had died down.
I can understand the anger at the mandatory nature of the TV License, especially if you really don't watch BBC content (however unlikely that may be), but people complaining about the loophole closure clearly do watch BBC content and are just whining because that particular gravy train has come to an end.
Frankly, I rather the license remain separate and not get absorbed into some nebulous taxation scheme - at least we can monitor the annual cost.
Is detection possible technically?
Potentially perhaps, but only if WiFi is being used presumably. Even then, the standard of proof might be difficult to obtain.
Maybe they will go the ITV Player route and require an account to be set up.Quote:
Originally Posted by DWhitley
Eh, detection isn't really possible for using a TV either
I seem to remember from Comms Theory years ago that it was, just impractical. Something to do with applying a frequency to decode the signal, which in turn would be transmitted through the aerial and could be detected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
I can certainly see the pros and cons to the TV licence, and this seems a sensible step for them to make. For now, I am not opposed to it. However, I can also it slowly dying due to streaming through other services. Unless they expanded licensing to include PC's/phones/tablets (or just an Internet connection), I cannot see how they can continue without direct funding via the Government. Sky I guess could be an indirect source; you need a TV licence to apply for it I would think, like buying a TV at a shop and they check?
TBH, I don't know what the big deal is, as long as you aren't required to have a licence just for the privilege of having a TV to to play games, watch BD/DVD etc.
I don't have a tv license, and only use TV for games/streaming netflix, etc. I do miss the morning news being on in the background, but that's what the radio is for...
Looks like the same route (requiring a login) as ITV's Player will be used after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229
didn't think the honesty box approach would work, but..Quote:
Originally Posted by Output
So, sign up for a free BBC ID, whack in any old postcode. Job done, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
The full BBC report says postcode won't be used for enforcement purposes at the moment, but may be in future.Quote:
Originally Posted by virtuo
At that point, I'd think they would probably also add the requirement for the house/flat number.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
They are going to struggle to verify that unless they send out a postal verification code or something, which'll cost them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Output
It all sounds rather flaky to me, and they are just using FUD to spook people in to paying for a license. Not that people shouldn't pay if they use the service, but for those who don't want to pay, I think it'll be easy to get away with.
Link the account to the TV license number and then compare registered addresses.Quote:
Originally Posted by virtuo
That's what I thought they were going to do when this was all first announced - but I've never seen anything saying that's what they will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
What can they do about account sharing? I could "register" my BBC ID against someone else's licensed property - are they going to put in the technology to monitor IPs against accounts? I could legitimately be using different IPs and even ISPs and they'd have to drag me through court to prove otherwise.
Will they only allow one license per ID?
Brain-dump questions, but it still doesn't look to me like it'll hold up technology-wise. I think the best they can do is try and set a strong precedent and take a lot of people to court early on, specifically for using iPlayer without a license - but it's risky if they can't go in with concrete evidence.