NationStates Jolt Archive

The BBC, as we all know, is one of the biggest media outlets in the world, if not the biggest. As most of us know this is funded by the public in the UK through TV licensing, currently costing £139.50 a year bringing the BBC budget to approximately £3 billion.

Many see the BBC as one of the pinnacles of fair reporting and good TV shows while others say the BBC should not be funded by the public but instead become a private firm, saving the taxpayer money and stimulating competition.

I personally don't see the problem in paying the £139.50 for the quality the BBC provides and all of its services. So where do you stand on the whole BBC, TV licensing and ownership situation?

The BBC, as we all know, is one of the biggest media outlets in the world, if not the biggest. As most of us know this is funded by the public in the UK through TV licensing, currently costing £139.50 a year bringing the BBC budget to approximately £3 billion.

Many see the BBC as one of the pinnacles of fair reporting and good TV shows while others say the BBC should not be funded by the public but instead become a private firm, saving the taxpayer money and stimulating competition.

I personally don't see the problem in paying the £139.50 for the quality the BBC provides and all of its services. So where do you stand on the whole BBC, TV licensing and ownership situation?

As an American, I think it's gone way downhill since the end of Monty Python episodes.

I don't like paying the money, but the BBC does produce the best tv in this country, not to mention the most reliable news.

The licence fee is a necessary evil.

I really hope you brits keep paying money, I like some of the shows on BBC and it's about the only channel on which I can see rugby (except the french channels, but I don't really understand them that well).

Many see the BBC as one of the pinnacles of fair reporting and good TV shows while others say the BBC should not be funded by the public but instead become a private firm, saving the taxpayer money and stimulating competition.


I think that frankly, the 'free market' would compromise the reputation of the BBC. Too many privately owned media outlets encourage bias (Fox News, Murdoch's empire, the criminal formally known as Conrad Black etc).

I really hope you brits keep paying money

While you continue to get it for free.

*Grumble grumble*

I never understood why Brits have to pay a TV licensing fee, why doesn't the government just fund the BBC like most other nations with a public TV station? It may even save the government money as they won't have to pay for the group of people that drive all around the country with detector vans and other equipment searching unlicensed TVs

Ho do they know if you have a licenced TV or not is there some sort of signal emitting from the TV that they place on when it has been licensed

While you continue to get it for free.

*Grumble grumble*

exactly!

I can't express my gratitude.

I think that frankly, the 'free market' would compromise the reputation of the BBC. Too many privately owned media outlets encourage bias (Fox News, Murdoch's empire, the criminal formally known as Conrad Black).

Yeah like none of the other news outlets have any bias.

I am sick to death of this fad that all of Murdoch's news outlets have a distinctive right wing bias, it seems like some sort of fad like hating emos and George Bush. I regularly read one of Murdoch's newspapers and if you people think that it has a right wing bias then you people need to reset your scales because I know that it has a strong left wing bias maybe slightly centre, but certainly not on the right side of politics

The BBC? Privatised? Certainly not!

Not only is the BBC news service the most widely respected and objective source of news in the world, BBC programming is certainly better than anything else offered by overseas and other national broadcasters, and not to mention the fact that there are no adverts!

This is all possible through public funding, so I'll keep paying for the license fee.

You only have to look at the United States to see what happens when there are no significant publically funded news corporations.

Whenever I watch the dedicated CNN news channel when I'm overseas, you get maybe 10 minutes of news, then advertisements, and so on and on. Not only is the quality of the programming ridiculously tawdry, there are always adverts, adverts and more adverts. It's a joke!

I regularly read one of Murdoch's newspapers and if you people think that it has a right wing bias then you people need to reset your scales because I know that it has a strong left wing bias maybe slightly centre, but certainly not on the right side of politics

I dread to think where you'd come on the political scale if you think the Murdoch sheets are 'strongly left wing'.

Yeah like none of the other news outlets have any bias.

I am sick to death of this fad that all of Murdoch's news outlets have a distinctive right wing bias, it seems like some sort of fad like hating emos and George Bush. I regularly read one of Murdoch's newspapers and if you people think that it has a right wing bias then you people need to reset your scales because I know that it has a strong left wing bias maybe slightly centre, but certainly not on the right side of politics

You are right in that it does not have a right wing bias. However, nor does it have a left wing bias. Heck you can't even put News Corp. outlets on a scale of bias. And do you know why?

Murdoch's papers, news channels and radio programs are all filled with bias towards Rupert Murdoch. His outlets will be biased for or against issues, countries and politicians depending on whether it is economically expedient for Murdoch, or it suits his own personal agenda.

Murdoch is a media mafiosi. If you cross him, or one of his close associates, he will set his media hounds on you, and ruin you.

News Corp isn't pro-left or pro-right. It's Pro-Murdoch!

Yeah like none of the other news outlets have any bias.

I am sick to death of this fad that all of Murdoch's news outlets have a distinctive right wing bias, it seems like some sort of fad like hating emos and George Bush. I regularly read one of Murdoch's newspapers and if you people think that it has a right wing bias then you people need to reset your scales because I know that it has a strong left wing bias maybe slightly centre, but certainly not on the right side of politics

Actually Murdoch's bias varies depending nation to nation. For example in the US , Fox News is very right wing while The Sun in the UK, is centrist and currently bordering on the right.

I never understood why Brits have to pay a TV licensing fee, why doesn't the government just fund the BBC like most other nations with a public TV station? It may even save the government money as they won't have to pay for the group of people that drive all around the country with detector vans and other equipment searching unlicensed TVs

Ho do they know if you have a licenced TV or not is there some sort of signal emitting from the TV that they place on when it has been licensed

Are you kidding? If the BBC was funded solely by the government, it loses it's autonomy and impartiality. It would be no different than privatising it.

The government could and probably would use it to promote government agenda's, and promote pro-government bias in news reports.

others say the BBC should not be funded by the public but instead become a private firm

do these "others" actually exist? because they clearly can't be British!

I never understood why Brits have to pay a TV licensing fee, why doesn't the government just fund the BBC like most other nations with a public TV station?

because then people without TV's will pay and considering these people are most likely still working on Feudal land they shouldn't be changed for others luxuries

How do they know if you have a licenced TV or not is there some sort of signal emitting from the TV that they place on when it has been licensed

they send a van with a dish to a residence they suspect of having a TV and not paying

I have no idea what they pick up on with the dish though but I'm guessing its sound :confused:

Not only is the quality of the programming ridiculously tawdry, there are always adverts, adverts and more adverts. It's a joke!

you should of used ITV as an example *shudders*

edit: I hate when my long post end up at the bottom of the page :(

In Germany we have many public channels, too.

And we have public channels which are allowed a certain amount of adverts to stock up their funds.


All in all I am very happy to have reliable news, it's just a pity that most people are too much inter pure, low level entertainment.
Also: The private stations are on a kind of crusade against the public stations and the 'unfair TV fees'. It's ridiculous.

And to the reason why the government doesn't pay the Public Stations.
That is because that public Stations shall be independent from the government!
There is a sharp difference between governmental TV and Public TV!

The BBC, as we all know, is one of the biggest media outlets in the world, if not the biggest. As most of us know this is funded by the public in the UK through TV licensing, currently costing £139.50 a year bringing the BBC budget to approximately £3 billion.

Many see the BBC as one of the pinnacles of fair reporting and good TV shows while others say the BBC should not be funded by the public but instead become a private firm, saving the taxpayer money and stimulating competition.

I personally don't see the problem in paying the £139.50 for the quality the BBC provides and all of its services. So where do you stand on the whole BBC, TV licensing and ownership situation?
Why does the BBC need £3 billion? is it really that expensive to run a half decent channel?
I'd like the cost to go down for it, because not everyone will pay for the licence and many people i know think it's a rip off, personally many of it's news items are pretty good. I'd like to see the public have more say in how it's run, if the public have to pay for it, it's only fair that way.
If the public cannot say what goes on the BBC, then it should be privatised.

Yeah like none of the other news outlets have any bias. Forgive me for not including an 'etc'. I'll rectify that. I wasn't confining my criticism to only these three areas.

And in terms of bias, I'm not talking necessarily about right or left, I'm talking about editorial power used to suppress criticism. Even when that criticism...no, excuse me ESPECIALLY when that criticism is in regards to the very media outlet that is publishing said criticism....it should be allowed. In fact, I think allowing such criticism is a healthy indication that the media outlet in question is capable of self-criticism and growth.

Then you had Mr. Black forcing his editors to reflect his personal views in his massive chain of Canada-wide papers. The 'heir' to his empire, Izzy Asper isn't any better mind you. Rather a fan of censorship as well.

In Germany we have many public channels, too.

And we have public channels which are allowed a certain amount of adverts to stock up their funds.


All in all I am very happy to have reliable news, it's just a pity that most people are too much inter pure, low level entertainment.
Also: The private stations are on a kind of crusade against the public stations and the 'unfair TV fees'. It's ridiculous.

And to the reason why the government doesn't pay the Public Stations.
That is because that public Stations shall be independent from the government!
There is a sharp difference between governmental TV and Public TV!

Here the BBC and government have come to blows many a time. Even though it is funded by the government, the government does not set the agenda.

As much as Auntie Beeb pisses me off at times (I cannot stand BBC News 24, and don’t even talk to me about BBC Three...), in no way would I like to see her privatised. The good outweighs the bad.

For every Two Pints and a Packet of Crisps that eats away at my very being, there’s a Planet Earth to salve the wounds.

I'd hate for the CBC to go private...I'd feel like there was no buffer between me and the McDonaldisation of all media. I feel about the same of the BBC, but it's not 'my' company.

Why does the BBC need £3 billion? is it really that expensive to run a half decent channel?

I'd say about 2 Billion of that goes to major sports events (which if it ever cut I guess we would see pubs around the country crumble)

the rest would go on reanimating Bruce Forsyth I guess

I'd like to see the public have more say in how it's run

you mean currently we don't?

While you continue to get it for free.

*Grumble grumble*

Yeah, but we get free healthcare.

The problem with competition is homogenisation... I just really fear the BBC becoming ITV, which is for slack-jawed retards, except the murder mystery hour and the odd film. Anyway, the BBC should remain nationalised.

I’d say about 2 Billion of that goes to major sports events (which if it ever cut I guess we would see pubs around the country crumble)
Or BSkyB would continue to snap them all up.

]the rest would go on reanimating Bruce Forsyth I guess
:p

No, it all gets spent on animating hippos.

Get the government out of the media business. Period. Sure, the BBC is great, but if it's so great, paying for it should be no problem. After all, taxpayers already do.

For every Two Pints and a Packet of Crisps that eats away at my very being, there’s a Planet Earth to salve the wounds.

so what do you watch when your completely monkeyed?

I'd hate for the CBC to go private

*pokes around on website* why do you have coronation street across the Atlantic O_O

While you continue to get it for free.

*Grumble grumble*
Though, AFAIK, folks outside the UK have severely limited access to the Beeb’s online and digital services. No listen/watch again, etc.

so what do you watch when your completely monkeyed?
Anything but that pile of shite.

The Thick of It (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIzx_Z-TGe4) was the last decent comedy program I can remember the BBC putting out.

Get the government out of the media business. Period. Sure, the BBC is great, but if it's so great, paying for it should be no problem. After all, taxpayers already do.

Considering the numerous and wide-spread problems with censorship in privately owne media outlets, I think it's entirely reasonable to wish to retain a few sources of media that are publicly owned, and therefore more directly responsible to the people as a whole AND more subject to the democratic process.

Yeah, but we get free healthcare.

Only at the point of use.

*pokes around on website* why do you have coronation street across the Atlantic O_O

You have no idea the sort of cult following Coronation Street has here in Canada. Mind you, I believe we're a number of weeks behind, so there is a bounty on the head of any fool stupid enough to come to Canada with news of episodes not yet seen.

Though, AFAIK, folks outside the UK have severely limited access to the Beeb’s online and digital services. No listen/watch again, etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/internet-groups-warn-bbc-over-iplayer-plans-461167.html

Some of the largest broadband providers in the UK are threatening to "pull the plug" from the BBC's new iPlayer unless the corporation contributes to the cost of streaming its videos over the internet.

The likes of Tiscali, BT and Carphone Warehouse are all growing concerned that the impact of hundreds of thousands of consumers watching BBC programmes on its iPlayer – which allows viewers to watch shows over the internet – will place an intolerable strain on their networks.

Just thought it was interesting how the success of the system is causing the BBC problems

You have no idea the sort of cult following Coronation Street has here in Canada.
That’s ace!

We in the UK have a cult following of Australia’s Neighbours, you Canucks love Corrie... do folks in Oz watch any Canadian soaps?

Just thought it was interesting how the success of the system is causing the BBC problems
The online services have been plagued with problems since their inception.

Only at the point of use.
Yeah, but it's better than paying thousands on insurance.

Yeah, but it's better than paying thousands on insurance.
...which you end up paying in NI/tax to pay for the NHS anyway.;)

Or BSkyB would continue to snap them all up.

nah I'm sure setanta sports will take off >.>

No, it all gets spent on animating hippos.

its better than those bloody dancers playing with curtains :p

Get the government out of the media business. Period. Sure, the BBC is great, but if it's so great, paying for it should be no problem. After all, taxpayers already do.

no I don't want to BBC to become some money hungry corporation pumping adverts in nor do I want to live in a world where the poor are locked out of the basic necessity of TV (oddly the TV licence bill is cut for low earners and such)

We in the UK have a cult following of Australia’s Neighbours, you Canucks love Corrie... do folks in Oz watch any Canadian soaps?




Does Canada even HAVE soaps?

I'd say about 2 Billion of that goes to major sports events (which if it ever cut I guess we would see pubs around the country crumble)

the rest would go on reanimating Bruce Forsyth I guess

you mean currently we don't?

Well if so much money goes to sporting events they can hardly call it a BBC licence, it's more like another tax system.
Why would pubs...oh right, you mean those folks who wa...no hang on, how would it affect the pubs?

reanimating Bruce Forsyth?:p I see a flaw in your reasoning, Bruce Forsyth is really irritating, with that horrific grin of his, i suppose he can't really change it, and he is a nice guy, but still he's past his time let him rest in piece doing gardening or whatever those old folks do best. (joke)

Well last time i checked, we are apparently still supposed to pay the BBC licence even if you don't have a TV, that's right for Laptops, computers, anything which has a video feed or information from BBC means you have to pay the licence, even camera phones apparently. according to a leaflet they sent me.
So i don't see how folks really have a choice in what they can watch when there's a few million viewers. as in, because there's so many people watching it, this will reduce the chance of each person watching what they want, and end up watching some boring soap like Eastenders, yeesh, you call that worth paying for? because i don't.

Well if so much money goes to sporting events they can hardly call it a BBC licence, it's more like another tax system.
Why would pubs...oh right, you mean those folks who wa...no hang on, how would it affect the pubs?

reanimating Bruce Forsyth?:p I see a flaw in your reasoning, Bruce Forsyth is really irritating, with that horrific grin of his, i suppose he can't really change it, and he is a nice guy, but still he's past his time let him rest in piece doing gardening or whatever those old folks do best. (joke)

Well last time i checked, we are apparently still supposed to pay the BBC licence even if you don't have a TV, that's right for Laptops, computers, anything which has a video feed or information from BBC means you have to pay the licence, even camera phones apparently. according to a leaflet they sent me.
So i don't see how folks really have a choice in what they can watch when there's a few million viewers. as in, because there's so many people watching it, this will reduce the chance of each person watching what they want, and end up watching some boring soap like Eastenders, yeesh, you call that worth paying for? because i don't.

Yes Eastenders is crap however I pay for excellent stuff like Doctor Who, Planet Earth, Little Britain, etc.

What's the alternative?

I'll tell you - adverts. Adverts are funded by companies. These companies make their money from us, the consumer (or as the OP put it, the taxpayer). So it's either fund the BBC directly, through the licence fee, or indirectly by buying advertised products. You personally may not, but enough do, hence why commercial tv works.

And frankly, £140 for what the BBC produces is very good value.

Yes Eastenders is crap however I pay for excellent stuff like Planet Earth, etc.
Fixed.

Seriously, Doctor Who and Little Britain? For the former, I'd rather watch Sylvester McCoy's Doctor, and for the latter, John Cleese farting would be funnier.

...which you end up paying in NI/tax to pay for the NHS anyway.;)

yes but see EVERYONE pays it on a sliding tax scale so everyone has acess to good healthcare not just the rich (and in the states that means the really rich . .. . not just the middle class)

The Thick of It (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIzx_Z-TGe4) was the last decent comedy program I can remember the BBC putting out.

you must of missed something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HIZkIAds48) have you been asleep? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tglVg9_G5nk)

You have no idea the sort of cult following Coronation Street has here in Canada. Mind you, I believe we're a number of weeks behind, so there is a bounty on the head of any fool stupid enough to come to Canada with news of episodes not yet seen.

I thought Britain was spared from at least Canadian ex-pats calling up asking for spoilers :cool:

...though I figured Canada as more an Eastenders land?

nah I’m sure setanta sports will take off
With ol’ Des Lyneham advertising the channel, how couldn’t it?

its better than those bloody dancers playing with curtains :p
True dat.

Bring back the old BBC 2 continuity skits, I say.

no I don’t want to BBC to become some money hungry corporation pumping adverts in nor do I want to live in a world where the poor are locked out of the basic necessity of TV (oddly the TV licence bill is cut for low earners and such)
Here, here!

you must of missed something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HIZkIAds48)have you been asleep? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tglVg9_G5nk)
Well, I don't have a telly, but you're right, Saxondale was excellent. At times better than I'm Alan Partridge or KMKYWAP.

Blasphemy, I know...

Does Canada even HAVE soaps?
Um... Trailer Park Boys? ;)

Well if so much money goes to sporting events they can hardly call it a BBC licence, it’s more like another tax system.
Hardly, unless you define any subscription fee as a tax.

Why would pubs...oh right, you mean those folks who wa...no hang on, how would it affect the pubs?
Pubs make huge revenue off of folks coming to watch sports (mostly football) in the premises. Football = Beer = Moneys.

Well last time i checked, we are apparently still supposed to pay the BBC licence even if you don’t have a TV, that’s right for Laptops, computers, anything which has a video feed or information from BBC means you have to pay the licence, even camera phones apparently. according to a leaflet they sent me.
I’ve just been through the same process and it’s not as harsh as the leaflet makes it out to be. As long as you don’t have a computer directly recording TV, or a TV with an ariel stuck into it, then you’re OK. We’ve got a big TV and loads of computers in the flat, but we don’t watch telly. When the TV license folk came round, we just showed that our TV was for playing the Wii on, that it wasn’t connected with an ariel, and that any computer with a TV In also wasn’t connected up.

Result? No license needed to be paid.

Yes Eastenders is crap however I pay for excellent stuff like Doctor Who, Planet Earth, Little Britain, etc.
One out of three ain’t bad...

...which you end up paying in NI/tax to pay for the NHS anyway.;)
And?

Better that than being denied treatment due to your current financial status.

What's the alternative?

I'll tell you - adverts. Adverts are funded by companies. These companies make their money from us, the consumer (or as the OP put it, the taxpayer). So it's either fund the BBC directly, through the licence fee, or indirectly by buying advertised products. You personally may not, but enough do, hence why commercial tv works.

And frankly, £140 for what the BBC produces is very good value.

I think adverts are a better alternative to paying so much money for shows we don't all watch.
i think if the BBC could specify how much it spends on certain shows, then folks would be more understanding of paying the bill. Like actually knowing exactly where your money goes.

I think adverts are a better alternative to paying so much money for shows we don’t all watch.
Fuck no!

There’s too many adverts about at the moment anyways, and we certainly don’t need the only non-corporate funded broadcaster to be in the pockets of big companies. Look at the crap that Channel 4, ITV and the others have to deal with.

i think if the BBC could specify how much it spends on certain shows, then folks would be more understanding of paying the bill. Like actually knowing exactly where your money goes.
If memory serves, you can get a fairly detailed run-down of where your money goes from the Beeb’s website. They’re very closely scrutinised.

I personally don't see the problem in paying the £139.50 for the quality the BBC provides and all of its services. So where do you stand on the whole BBC, TV licensing and ownership situation?

I equally don't mind paying the license but only if they do provide the quality, not the rubbish thats on now.

I thought Britain was spared from at least Canadian ex-pats calling up asking for spoilers :cool:

...though I figured Canada as more an Eastenders land?

Never heard of it. But I've yet to meet a Senior, man or woman who doesn't love Coronation Street, and most of my parent's generation was bombarded with it from the beginning. It gets primetime baby.

Fuck no!

There’s too many adverts about at the moment anyways, and we certainly don’t need the only non-corporate funded broadcaster to be in the pockets of big companies. Look at the crap that Channel 4, ITV and the others have to deal with.


If memory serves, you can get a fairly detailed run-down of where your money goes from the Beeb’s website. They’re very closely scrutinised.

So are you happy paying the licence fee for watching the BBC? I'd like at least a few changes in how we pay for it, to make it look like there's been a hint of evolutionary change.

The BBC is one of the last bastions of collective ownership, and by God does it work. We are bombarded daily by adverts, and its nice to watch a channel which does not have them.

I'll pay my licence with much gratitude. I'd rather that than an hike in my Income Tax, or deprive £3 billion from another department. The BBC can host equal party broadcasts, without bias, as with the news.

Overall, it makes me proud to have such a station in my country, and only wish such public funding could branch into transport and energy too ...

I think adverts are a better alternative to paying so much money for shows we don't all watch.
i think if the BBC could specify how much it spends on certain shows, then folks would be more understanding of paying the bill. Like actually knowing exactly where your money goes.
You subsidise the advertising on programs you don't watch on commercial tv as well - including on channels you may not actually be able to watch. Commercial tv works in exactly the same way as the BBC, except with one exception - commercial tv has to make a profit. No one expects you to watch or listen to or read BBC tv, radio or websites all the time, but if you're going to break it down, you pay less than 50 pence per day (ie. less than the cost of your average 'quality' (term used loosely) newspaper), even if you're the sole payer of the licence fee. Only complain if you feel a) you don't get that much benefit from the BBC daily and b) you reckon you spend less than that per day on tv-advertised products.

This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/) is as much information as the BBC gives on how the licence fee is spent.

I'm perfectly understanding of paying the bill - mind you, as I live with four other people, I only actually pay about £27 a year.

So are you happy paying the licence fee for watching the BBC?
I don’t watch telly, so I don’t pay the license fee. But I feel the price, though a little steep for some (especially students) is worth having a public broadcaster. And as I said above, for every shite BBC Three ‘comedy’, we can point to something like Planet Earth, The Thick of It, Today, BBC World Service, etc.

I’d like at least a few changes in how we pay for it, to make it look like there’s been a hint of evolutionary change.
Sure, change would be good. A shake-up of News 24 and the ‘yoof’ programming would be nice. But I think the Beeb can change without bending over for the corporations.

The BBC is the best news, tv and radio (many of you have forgotten that side of it) organisation in the world, quite simply. And it's quite unique in its funding and organisation (though sometimes I wonder if it's a tad unfair that we pay a license fee to the BBC to then be given ITV and the other channels for free).

So, yeah, I think it thoroughly deserves its status. And some other areas it is involved in: commissioning of new tv/radio/music content, running festivals such as the Proms, sports coverage/funding (the institution that is MotD).

The BBC, as we all know, is one of the biggest media outlets in the world, if not the biggest. As most of us know this is funded by the public in the UK through TV licensing, currently costing £139.50 a year bringing the BBC budget to approximately £3 billion.

Many see the BBC as one of the pinnacles of fair reporting and good TV shows while others say the BBC should not be funded by the public but instead become a private firm, saving the taxpayer money and stimulating competition.

I personally don't see the problem in paying the £139.50 for the quality the BBC provides and all of its services. So where do you stand on the whole BBC, TV licensing and ownership situation?

Keep it as a public broadcasting station. I absolutely like it that way. If the BBC get privatized it'll be the end of all the good programs it presents.

I'm a fan of "Brother Cadfael". It's sad that they don't show it anymore, but that and no more Monthy Python it's not reason enough to make it a private corporation.

I have a question.
In regard to people from countries other than the UK who watch and/or read BBC news, do you have to pay a TV licence for owning a Television?

I have a question.
In regard to people from countries other than the UK who watch and/or read BBC news, do you have to pay a TV licence for owning a Television?

Not in Spain.

Not in Spain.

So even though you can receive information from the BBC you don't have to pay for usage of it?
while folks in UK are supposed to pay TV licence should they own a TV, Computer, laptop, just about any device used to pick up information from BBC.

So even though you can receive information from the BBC you don’t have to pay for usage of it?
while folks in UK are supposed to pay TV licence should they own a TV, Computer, laptop, just about any device used to pick up information from BBC.
As I said above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13608952&postcount=44), that’s not entirely the case:

As long as you don’t have a computer directly recording TV, or a TV with an ariel stuck into it, then you’re OK. We’ve got a big TV and loads of computers in the flat, but we don’t watch telly. When the TV license folk came round, we just showed that our TV was for playing the Wii on, that it wasn’t connected with an ariel, and that any computer with a TV In also wasn’t connected up.

Result? No license needed to be paid.

As I said above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13608952&postcount=44), that’s not entirely the case:

yeah okay if you want to be picky about it, then what you said is correct. but it's not far off from what i said.

So even though you can receive information from the BBC you don't have to pay for usage of it?
while folks in UK are supposed to pay TV licence should they own a TV, Computer, laptop, just about any device used to pick up information from BBC.

Essentially yes, if you're referring to the private citizens. I don't know if our local stations have to pay a licence, but once it hits the airwaves, we do not have to pay a single euro.

The BBC should be private in my opinion.

I never watch the BBC channels so doesn't make a difference to me whether there's adverts or not. I don't want to pay a license fee plus the sky/whatever fee to give me the only 3 channels I would want to watch. I also don't want to keep getting constant reminders/inspections to check if I'm dodging the license fee when I have no tv aerial and use a television only for watching dvd's. Pain in the ass.

None of the BBC services have ANY appeal in my opinion, and maybe if they're forced to make money they'll stop making Radio 1 so god damn irritating.

None of the BBC services have ANY appeal in my opinion, and maybe if they’re forced to make money they’ll stop making Radio 1 so god damn irritating.
Not likely with all the jingles for products they’ll be forced to air.

And if the Beeb was privately funded, I doubt we’d be seeing things like Jerry Springer: The Opera or HIGNFY on the tube.

I have a question.
In regard to people from countries other than the UK who watch and/or read BBC news, do you have to pay a TV licence for owning a Television?
we don't in the US......the whole concept irked me until I figured out where the money went.

Does Canada even HAVE soaps?

Nope. Actually, we live in igloos, so it's pretty hard to get TV around here. And this computer I'm using right now? It's a complicated structure of snow and ice.

Seriously...we're a few million people. Around 32, I would guess. Even though our own soaps are just a copy of USA's soaps, we still make some. Well, actually, some are not so bad...

Nope. Actually, we live in igloos, so it's pretty hard to get TV around here. And this computer I'm using right now? It's a complicated structure of snow and ice.

Seriously...we're a few million people. Around 32, I would guess. Even though our own soaps are just a copy of USA's soaps, we still make some. Well, actually, some are not so bad...

Neesika is from Canada

Here, we have lots of government stations here in my country and they all suck badly. Too badly run and all we see are government propaganda (but nobody watches them anyway! :D). Only the biased private TV stations criticize the government, according to their slant, but hey, I believe that no news agency, however credible, is entirely free of bias.

I get BBC on cable here and perhaps our cable provider do pay to have BBC on their roster of channels... Oh, and by the way, BBC is great - my primary source of foreign news...
I think that frankly, the 'free market' would compromise the reputation of the BBC. Too many privately owned media outlets encourage bias (Fox News, Murdoch's empire, the criminal formally known as Conrad Black etc).
Same goes with Italian media...

You subsidise the advertising on programs you don't watch on commercial tv as well - including on channels you may not actually be able to watch. Commercial tv works in exactly the same way as the BBC, except with one exception - commercial tv has to make a profit. No one expects you to watch or listen to or read BBC tv, radio or websites all the time, but if you're going to break it down, you pay less than 50 pence per day (ie. less than the cost of your average 'quality' (term used loosely) newspaper), even if you're the sole payer of the licence fee. Only complain if you feel a) you don't get that much benefit from the BBC daily and b) you reckon you spend less than that per day on tv-advertised products.

This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/) is as much information as the BBC gives on how the licence fee is spent.

I'm perfectly understanding of paying the bill - mind you, as I live with four other people, I only actually pay about £27 a year.

They give a little bit more information than that...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/

Neesika is from Canada

Hm, tell me then, Neesika, did you mean that everything we have is from the U.S., or that you never actually saw a Canadian soap? :confused:

They give a little bit more information than that...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/
Hmm, ok.

But, y'know, that's 156 pages. Fuck that.

The BBC, as we all know, is one of the biggest media outlets in the world, if not the biggest. As most of us know this is funded by the public in the UK through TV licensing, currently costing £139.50 a year bringing the BBC budget to approximately £3 billion.

Many see the BBC as one of the pinnacles of fair reporting and good TV shows while others say the BBC should not be funded by the public but instead become a private firm, saving the taxpayer money and stimulating competition.

I personally don't see the problem in paying the £139.50 for the quality the BBC provides and all of its services. So where do you stand on the whole BBC, TV licensing and ownership situation?

I don't watch BBC channels. At all. I can't even remember the last time I watched one. I have Sky, so I have better programmes to watch on other channels. Why the hell should I pay the BBC for the 'privilege' of owning a television?

Why the hell should I pay the BBC for the 'privilege' of owning a television?

You shouldn't and don't

Hm, tell me then, Neesika, did you mean that everything we have is from the U.S., or that you never actually saw a Canadian soap? :confused:

The latter...I'm not really up on soaps. Well, I looooove Mexican soaps but yeah. So are there? Any Canadian soaps?

The latter...I'm not really up on soaps. Well, I looooove Mexican soaps but yeah. So are there? Any Canadian soaps?

I'm pretty confident there are, though they surely aren't popular. There has been a lot of Quebecer soaps, though, so I guess if they count, yes.

I'm pretty confident there are, though they surely aren't popular. There has been a lot of Quebecer soaps, though, so I guess if they count, yes.

Please name some:)

Please name some:)

If you insist, I say "Virginie", a classic Quebecer soap. There are many others, though I'm not sure there are any for the rest of Canada. If fact, I can't name or find any for the rest of Canada...

Edit: Pushing daisies, desperate housewifes, etc, all American...

Keep it public. We don't want another complete clusterfuck in the style of Royal Mail or the trains, now, do we?

I don't watch BBC channels. At all. I can't even remember the last time I watched one. I have Sky, so I have better programmes to watch on other channels. Why the hell should I pay the BBC for the 'privilege' of owning a television?

Because it's for the common good and for those who don't have sky, who, as you'll find out, are not the majority of the population. And also, what, in your eyes, qualifies as good? Go on, tell me. The BBC have a brilliant selection of television shows with absolutely NO adverts, and if you actually bothered to try and watch BBC programmes, you'll find that they are actually of a higher intellectual and sophisticated level than the endless repeats of scrubs and the simpsons on the Sky channels.

Also, the BBC don't charge for people to have televisions, they charge for people so they can support their programming at a stable rate.
If you enjoy low-class American imports with 5 minute intervals every ten minutes, I guess you're just rather idiotic. Doesn't mean I don't watch programmes like that on those channels, but in the end, it's just plain irritating and they often cut out entire sections of televisions shows for a place to put their commercials.

Also, I think you'll find that most good programmes are actually BBC programmes, such as the UKTV imports, 80% of programmes shown on those channels is of BBC origin.
Without the BBC mate, you'd be buggered.

If you insist, I say "Virginie", a classic Quebecer soap. There are many others, though I'm not sure there are any for the rest of Canada. If fact, I can't name or find any for the rest of Canada...

Edit: Pushing daisies, desperate housewifes, etc, all American...

Well then Mr. (or Ms.) huffy igloo pants, a big :P to you :D

I'm not a huge fan of state-sized tax ("license") funded operations. But, I am a huge fan of public responsibility and quality programming. Since the Perfect World doesn't exist, I have to settle for some kind of compromise. And the BBC and the CBC are examples of public enterprise done well.

I would gladly pay through the nose if I could get the BBC and CBC on my television. In the mean time, I'll continue consuming free news and podcasts via the internet (BBC/CBC Radio FTW). :D

British and Canadian NSGers need to work on getting me more BBC and CBC content via the Internet (I'm perfectly happy to pay a subscription or something like that) anyway, as I plan to quit watching television here entirely in February of 2009 (http://www.dtv.gov/). "Better sound quality and more channels!" Of course, a tech savy individual like myself also knows that it's about "better corporate and government control over what you may or may not watch!" "Yay for the 'free' market!"

We've got less than a year people! Go, go, go!

If I lived there. sure, I would be ticked off. I do not think I have much of a say in the matter, since I live elswhere.

Are you kidding? If the BBC was funded solely by the government, it loses it's autonomy and impartiality. It would be no different than privatising it.

The government could and probably would use it to promote government agenda's, and promote pro-government bias in news reports.
I don't see how it would change anything. If the government wanted to use the threat of a reduction in funding to damage the BBC's impartiality, they could just threaten to reduce the TV licence fee when it's next reviewed. The only differences that I could see is that it would be much fairer as it wouldn't penalise the poor so much, and it would eliminate the costs and bureaucracy associated with collecting the licence fee.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13609647']I don't see how it would change anything. If the government wanted to use the threat of a reduction in funding to damage the BBC's impartiality, they could just threaten to reduce the TV licence fee when it's next reviewed. The only differences that I could see is that it would be much fairer as it wouldn't penalise the poor so much, and it would eliminate the costs and bureaucracy associated with collecting the licence fee.

It keeps it clear and defined so it doesn't get included in the normal complicated tax calculations and cutting etc that goes on. It's the image as well, clearly keeping the BBC at arms length from the government.

BBC? Bluegrass Brewing Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluegrass_Brewing_Company)?

Are you kidding? If the BBC was funded solely by the government, it loses it's autonomy and impartiality. It would be no different than privatising it.

The government could and probably would use it to promote government agenda's, and promote pro-government bias in news reports.

Well Australia has something similar the ABC and it is independent and solely funded by the government i.e. taxpayers money, which is exactly what is happening now isn't it? Brits pay a TV licensing fee which goes to the BBC enabling them to operate. Just because something is funded by the government doesn't mean it has to be used by the government to promote their agenda government funded agencies can be independent.

Well if BBC were privatized (in some open action), guess which media mogul will overbid others. 5$ says its Murdoch, and it may be not good idea.

Besides Murdoch sometimes resembles word Mordor. Coincidence?!

BBC? Bluegrass Brewing Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluegrass_Brewing_Company)?

British Broadcasting Corporation.
Similar to ABC in America, that (not surprisingly) stands for American Broadcasting Corporation, only it's British and takes its funding through TV licenses instead of advertising.

BBC? Bluegrass Brewing Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluegrass_Brewing_Company)?

British Broadcasting Corporation.
Similar to ABC in America, that (not surprisingly) stands for American Broadcasting Corporation, only it's British and partly nationalised and takes its funding through TV licenses instead of advertising.

The BBC, as we all know, is one of the biggest media outlets in the world, if not the biggest. As most of us know this is funded by the public in the UK through TV licensing, currently costing £139.50 a year bringing the BBC budget to approximately £3 billion.

Many see the BBC as one of the pinnacles of fair reporting and good TV shows while others say the BBC should not be funded by the public but instead become a private firm, saving the taxpayer money and stimulating competition.

I personally don't see the problem in paying the £139.50 for the quality the BBC provides and all of its services. So where do you stand on the whole BBC, TV licensing and ownership situation?

Also radio and their website...

However the Beeb also has a business side in BBCWorldwide...

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/

While you continue to get it for free.

*Grumble grumble*

Exactly! :D

Keep it public. I think its quality & independence would suffer if it was privatised.

Many see the BBC as one of the pinnacles of fair reporting and good TV shows...

I personally don't see the problem in paying the £139.50 for the quality the BBC provides and all of its services.

yup. i like that the BBC isn't a slave to ratings and money. it can have principles. but a cheaper licence fee for lower income families would be good.

plus i mostly watch BBC shows (often on Dave for Top Gear or QI/Mock The Week reruns). hardly ever watch Channel 4 or ITV... i'm a BBC2 whore :p

Yeah, but we get free healthcare.

Amazing that the private healthcare exists in the UK. Wait, it actually thrives in the UK. I wonder why?

BTW nothing is free. You pay through taxes. We pay through our employers.

I think the main problem for the BBC is that it is moving towards web-based content - how they justify the licence fee when people around the world can access it for free is going to be a tipping point.

a cheaper licence fee for lower income families would be good.

thats already available but you need to pop into the benefits office for it (the shame stops anyone trying it I guess)

or in the language of those that qualify for the benefit "go reeed da leaflit u get on payday innit" :p

Amazing that the private healthcare exists in the UK. Wait, it actually thrives in the UK. I wonder why?

because the NHS rents all their hospital beds, its like how airports make all the cash on parking

I don't like paying the money, but the BBC does produce the best tv in this country, not to mention the most reliable news.

The licence fee is a necessary evil.

I am italian, live in Italy and know BBC. Its information is really very good.
Also I think that the licence fee is a necessary evil!!!

because the NHS rents all their hospital beds, its like how airports make all the cash on parking
As well as government policy requiring the NHS to privatise facilities and then get private contractors to run them. I'd like to know how much of this 'thriving' private healthcare is actually work within the NHS.

As a non-Brit, I don't have to pay the TV license. I do think that the British people deserve our thanks for funding the BBC.

Amazing that the private healthcare exists in the UK. Wait, it actually thrives in the UK. I wonder why?
It's the same principle as private education. The private sector steals the good doctors from the public sector, which leaves people in public healthcare with the second-best. Also, the public sector is managed by an inefficient bureaucracy system, but that could be dealt with if not for the fact that the people who could make it better are also working privately.

In conclusion, Nationalise Everything. Lawl.

The BBC should remain non-commercial. This is not because it's news is unbiased, because it does have a bias, and I rarely use it for it's news, though I do use BBC Parliament. However the quality of many of it's educational and documentary series is far superior to any in the private sector, particularly it's history, wild life and some current affairs documentaries, plus the fact it has no commercials is a major bonus.

The current administration of the license fee, where the government only intervenes in as much as to grant the charter is ideal. Any direct budgetary involvement would make it more a tool for political parties.

What I dislike about the BBC is the drop in quality it has experienced, particularly in it's news broadcasting, and in the gradual turning of it's documentary output from being academic and educational (and interesting) into something that gets nearer and nearer to the “infotainment” served up by Discovery, History and National Geographic channels. It hasn't reached anywhere near that level of mediocrity yet, but the fact it is heading there is unfortunate. The BBC should strike an on-going high level agreement with academic bodies in key fields to co-produce more programmes with more academic input, and plan future documentary series jointly, and explicitly reject chasing viewing figures and accessibility “targets” that lead to dumbing down in the first place.

The BBC should be aiming to drag the population up to the level of it's finest programming, not dumb down said programming to the lowest level of the population.

Also they should drop the idea of launching ever more channels (radio and TV) and focus on doing a few things to a high quality rather than a large amount of mediocre dross. Loose BBC3, BBC4, and slim down to three radio channels (one being regional, one being independent, one independent, historical and world music, the third being academic). Keep News24 and BBC Parliament and launch a specific education channel, and a fund to produce independent films in association with BFI that in future could be screened on a dedicated non-commercial channel.

What should not happen is that the BBC is sold off for a few pounds and some backsheesh to a cheap private company who want to spend as little as possible on some quick content to bulk out the commercials, in order to make as much profit as possible (i.e. Pretty much any private broadcaster except Channel 4).

Also they should drop the idea of launching ever more channels (radio and TV) and focus on doing a few things to a high quality rather than a large amount of mediocre dross. Loose BBC3, BBC4, and slim down to three radio channels (one being regional, one being independent, one independent, historical and world music, the third being academic).


Why get rid of BBC4 when it is a place to find genuinely interesting programmes that can't attract a large audience? Why get rid of the radio channels?


and a fund to produce independent films in association with BFI that in future could be screened on a dedicated non-commercial channel.


There's already a BBC Films

Why get rid of BBC4 when it is a place to find genuinely interesting programmes that can't attract a large audience? Why get rid of the radio channels?

I've often found BBC4 is the sole place of 'educational' documentaries and things that he seemed to be wanting on the other channels. This may be just because they do a lot of music-related things.

British Broadcasting Corporation.
Similar to ABC in America, that (not surprisingly) stands for American Broadcasting Corporation, only it's British and takes its funding through TV licenses instead of advertising.

British Broadcasting Corporation.
Similar to ABC in America, that (not surprisingly) stands for American Broadcasting Corporation, only it's British and partly nationalised and takes its funding through TV licenses instead of advertising.

My post was a joke, I know what the BBC is...

The current administration of the license fee, where the government only intervenes in as much as to grant the charter is ideal. Any direct budgetary involvement would make it more a tool for political parties.

What I dislike about the BBC is the drop in quality it has experienced, particularly in it's news broadcasting, and in the gradual turning of it's documentary output from being academic and educational (and interesting) into something that gets nearer and nearer to the “infotainment” served up by Discovery, History and National Geographic channels. It hasn't reached anywhere near that level of mediocrity yet, but the fact it is heading there is unfortunate. The BBC should strike an on-going high level agreement with academic bodies in key fields to co-produce more programmes with more academic input, and plan future documentary series jointly, and explicitly reject chasing viewing figures and accessibility “targets” that lead to dumbing down in the first place.

The BBC should be aiming to drag the population up to the level of it's finest programming, not dumb down said programming to the lowest level of the population.

I'm pretty certain that recently the BBC has been brought to task for this and told to produce more educational programming by the trust. Which actually highlights the major reason the BBC should remain public. Not only does it mean freedom from commercial forces, (relative) impartiality and no adverts, one of their conditions for receiving the money is a duty to produce educational and innovative programmes. Not only are they more likely to take risks with their programming, it's part of their charter to do so.

Also they should drop the idea of launching ever more channels (radio and TV) and focus on doing a few things to a high quality rather than a large amount of mediocre dross. Loose BBC3, BBC4, and slim down to three radio channels (one being regional, one being independent, one independent, historical and world music, the third being academic). Keep News24 and BBC Parliament and launch a specific education channel, and a fund to produce independent films in association with BFI that in future could be screened on a dedicated non-commercial channel.

What should not happen is that the BBC is sold off for a few pounds and some backsheesh to a cheap private company who want to spend as little as possible on some quick content to bulk out the commercials, in order to make as much profit as possible (i.e. Pretty much any private broadcaster except Channel 4).

I disagree about extra channels. I don't think there should be any more, but BBC3 is somewhere they can try out new programmes before moving them to BBC2 (Torchwood being a classic example) or off-beat comedy (The Mighty Bosch and Monkey Dust). BBC Four is actually the home of a lot of the programming you claim to support, with numerous documentaries (many of which have previously been shown on the main BBC channels and thus give you a chance to rewatch/catch them if you missed them first time around) and similarly a place to try them out before repeating them on BBC One or Two.

Channel 4 does actually also have a charter detailing it's responsibilities to educational broadcasting, which helps with it's programming, although it does tend to balance out these necessities with some god-awful programming and (as far as I can tell) very little original dramas/entertainment series (US imports and reality TV making up most of it's entertainment schedule).

In what bizzaro universe is the reporting at the BBC even close to fair? It's almost as left-biased as Reuters.

.......QI........

You have good taste.

In what bizzaro universe is the reporting at the BBC even close to fair? It's almost as left-biased as Reuters.

And yet it also often gets accused of a right-wing bias. I think it may be doing something right when both sides accuse it of being biased.

Of course it is a British news outlet, which means it's still going to be more left than mainstream US news for example (but then again, so are the Tories), but taking in mind cultural differences I personally feel it manages to be one of the few news outlets that I can read without feeling it's pushing an agenda.

Why does the BBC need £3 billion? is it really that expensive to run a half decent channel?

You have no idea how expensive it is to buy or make an Australian soap :p.

We in the UK have a cult following of Australia’s Neighbours, you Canucks love Corrie... do folks in Oz watch any Canadian soaps?

None that I know of.

I find it sad that the U.K love Neighbours so much, considering I dislike it.

I find it sad that the U.K love Neighbours so much, considering I dislike it.

Not all that much since it has moved to Five from it's twice-daily showings on BBC One... a significant fall from grace.

Not all that much since it has moved to Five from it's twice-daily showings on BBC One... a significant fall from grace.

My brother was mortified when the move was announced. I just laughed at his mindless adherence to such an awful show, and glad at the decision to replace it with something better like .... hmm, maybe not.

I don't like paying the money, but the BBC does produce the best tv in this country, not to mention the most reliable news.

The licence fee is a necessary evil.

Agreed, although I do think it's shameful that the BBC chose to piss money away on F1, when they ought to have bought the rights to the cricket, and allowed the permanently middle aged, such as myself, to listen to TMS commentary with the benefit of television coverage.

My brother was mortified when the move was announced. I just laughed at his mindless adherence to such an awful show, and glad at the decision to replace it with something better like .... hmm, maybe not.

Hush now. Neighbours was brilliant; I'm well aware by any reasonable critical standards it was unforgiveable, however, I found it's naff acting and squishy storylines strangely appealing. And Sky Mangel, until she got blonde hair and a child, of course.

And Sky Mangel...
I quite agree.

*sighs dreamily*

I quite agree.

*sighs dreamily*

Exactly. I believe I'm the same age as the character she acts, which, when aged 15, when she had black hair with cute blue bits in, made her impossibly hot.....:)

For my sins I watched the first ever episode...then it became a bit of a habit...

Luckily now I don't care...

Another classic Aussie soap...

Prisoner Cell Block H...but they showed that on ITV...

Hush now. Neighbours was brilliant; I'm well aware by any reasonable critical standards it was unforgiveable, however, I found it's naff acting and squishy storylines strangely appealing. And Sky Mangel, until she got blonde hair and a child, of course.

Yeah, I never got the watch-because-there's-someone-hot-in-it attitude. My brother watched the O.C. for the same reason; I saw one episode and thought it was awful.

I'm not a fan of F1 either, but I'd like it if they had more badminton and hockey broadcast.

I'm not a fan of F1 either, but I'd like it if they had more badminton and hockey

What, like during the pit stops or something?

What, like during the pit stops or something?

... I'd already be asleep or have left the room by then.

Yeah, I never got the watch-because-there's-someone-hot-in-it attitude. My brother watched the O.C. for the same reason; I saw one episode and thought it was awful.

I'm not a fan of F1 either, but I'd like it if they had more badminton and hockey broadcast.

I liked Neighbours for the unashamed naffness of it more than anything.

Anyway, Badminton and Hockey could be resolved with a BBCSport channel; I can't imagine the rights to either being of any great value, and I suspect a dedicated sports channel would enjyoy great popularity. Especially if, unlike Sky, they ran county cricket, if only as a Match of the Day highlights affair.

I liked Neighbours for the unashamed naffness of it more than anything.

Anyway, Badminton and Hockey could be resolved with a BBCSport channel; I can't imagine the rights to either being of any great value, and I suspect a dedicated sports channel would enjyoy great popularity. Especially if, unlike Sky, they ran county cricket, if only as a Match of the Day highlights affair.

One thing that I've never understood about their sports programming is their insistence on showing golf tournaments. Why would anyone watch golf, it is dull as hell and takes up an unreasonably amount of broadcast time because of its slow pace.

One thing that I've never understood about their sports programming is their insistence on showing golf tournaments. Why would anyone watch golf, it is dull as hell and takes up an unreasonably amount of broadcast time because of its slow pace.

You get a lot of broadcast space filled for not much more money.