Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TV licence.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TV licence.

    This is one thing that I always found somewhat irritating. In Britain, Eire, and Europe, in order to enjoy your television, you need to purchase a licence. Here in America and I think Canada, no such requirement for us to watch the television.
    Last edited by Nick Dando; 8th August 2019, 07:04 PM. Reason: Spelling

  • #2
    Originally posted by Derick Angerman View Post
    In Britain, Eire, and Europe, in order to enjoy your television, you need to purchase a license.
    There has never been a TV licence required in Spain to the best of my knowledge, however I don't know about the rest of Europe. RTVE is financed through advertising and some money from the government, but there is no requirement to purchase a licence. There are of course subscription channels you can pay for, as we have here in the UK, and I assume likewise in America.

    The TV licence has always been a bone of contention here. In this day and age, I personally think the BBC should be a subscription service and that way one has the option to receive their channels or not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Derick Angerman View Post
      Here in America and I think Canada, no such requirement for us to watch the television.
      You have to watch brain curdling adverts and inane programming instead. Free to Air television broadcasting in North America is abysmal. You need to pay for any quality content.

      Comment


      • #4
        Here in Canada, buy the TV set, your all set. Depending on where you live, I live in Westmount, Montreal area. Plenty of stations available. Plenty of junk, for the best entertainment, definitely subscribe to cable tv service. Yes we have a tax to pay, here in Quebec it’s 9.75 %.

        Comment


        • #5
          For years now I've mainly watched YouTube and the internet in preference to TV. In all that time I've still paid my licence fee, as I didn't want their inspectors coming round and insisting on looking in my flat. It is of course possible to watch BBC on your PC, but mainly I just look at the BBC's static weather forecast. However, since I do pay my licence, I decided this year to watch the Jeremy Thorpe dramatisation and also 'Years and Years', which were causing a stir, and I enjoyed both. But really, the TV licence is an anachronism these days.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Derick Angerman View Post
            This is one thing that I always found somewhat irritating. In Britain, Eire, and Europe, in order to enjoy your television, you need to purchase a license. Here in America and I think Canada, no such requirement for us to watch the television.
            But you don't have the BBC (except the BBC Wild Service radio & some TV shows produced by them)

            Are there any public service broadcasters in Canada?

            Steve

            Comment


            • #7
              Actually Eire is changing to a digital license to cover online watching such as Youtube as well as its tv stations, it is due to start in a few years time. The shape of things to come.

              Comment


              • #8
                Here in Montreal PBS station WCFE is available. In Toronto area PBS station serving Buffaloe New York and Toronto. Other major cities in Canada have PBS stations available. Usually they are offered in the subscription services.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Also, here in Canada and the U.S.A. BBC Canada and BBC America is offered in the subscription TV services. These channels usually televise British television programs. PBS channels quite often will ask for donations to keep them going.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I’ve said lots of times the TV licence should be scrapped. We are paying millions for a new Eastenders studio. I can’t remember the last time I watched the BBC. It should be a subscription model. But if they did this it wouldn’t get much money. It is to me a huge scandal. I used to like BBC 2 and 4 but they are terrible now.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by googiefan View Post
                      I’ve said lots of times the TV licence should be scrapped. We are paying millions for a new Eastenders studio.
                      The BBC don't do themselves any favours with the manner in which they extravagantly spend money, and then claim they are hard up and need an increase in the licence fee. Without mentioning names, to pay someone £1.7 million and his sidekick a further £400,000+ just to prattle on about football and show some highlights, is beyond a joke.

                      Comment


                      • agutterfan
                        agutterfan commented
                        Editing a comment
                        They also don't do any favours in ruining popular shows like "Dr Who" under the pretence of inane PC reasons (e.g. diversity), especially if such changes are made against the wishes of a show's fans. If I want an hour's lecture on the evils of colonialism (which I agree was evil) I'll watch a historical or documentary show.

                      • Carl V
                        Carl V commented
                        Editing a comment
                        I couldn't agree more. I've hardly heard a good word said about this last series of Doctor Who - as you rightly say, too much PC lecturing rather than making it a family entertainment show like it used to be.

                    • #12
                      Before everyone complains about the BBC and the licence fee, the BBC makes programmes for everyone. Which means that your not going to like everything. And that includes the latest series of Dr Who (who are all these 'fans' that the show offended so much? People on the internet are just that - just some voices, and not everyone. The latest series viewing figures/appreciation seems to be holding up pretty well).

                      Do I like verything on the BBC? No. I dont like sport, soaps, cant keep up with all the dramas, and a lot of modern music. But thats OK, because there are things that I do like. Thats how it works.

                      The quality of most shows is fine - it makes more drama than anyone (probably the largest in the world), and more documentaries as well. If you cant find something to watch on Iplayer, you are very hard to please. And it nurtures talent in a way nobody else really does. BBC4 terrible? They do ace stuff - the Yacht Rock programmes were great. The BBC does programmes nobody else does - the BBC has supported the Proms since the twenties, and there is no way that any commercial broadcaster is going to bother much with it, or at least not over a long term. Would ITV do Big Blue Live or 'Slow TV'? Not a chance. And dont even start on radio - there used to be an ace website called 'Compare My radio', which analysed playlists on different radio stations. Compared with commercial radio, the BBC played a far higher mix of music, even on Radio 1 and 2. And Radio 6 Music is very very eclectic.

                      The Eastenders set is decades old and really needs an upgrade - a lot of it was vaguely temporary over 20 years ago. I dont watch Easterenders, but a lot of people do, and if they want to watch it in the best quality, then they are going to need a decent set, with proper drainage, site access, etc. And that costs money, especially since its a really tight site, with not a huge amount of room to expand.

                      Brianist over on UKfree.TV did a whole series of how you could replace the licence fee, the BBC and its future, etc. And pretty much all the alternatives to the licence fee had major problems - someone was going to complain somewhere. If you wanted the BBC to become a subscription service, then OK, but that would cost a lot more money, (especially equipment), and you would have less choice, and a lot less access. It might also bankrupt Sky. Adverts would certainly bankrupt ITV.

                      If you want the BBC to be slimmed down to a US PBS style service, you would please Rupert Murdoch, but probably not a huge number of other people - thats an ideological point, not an actual problem that needs solving.

                      The licence fee, which covers you for everything, is pretty much universal, as is the amount of BBC services people use. If anyone can find anything more cost effective or fairer, given the states of modern tech, give it a try. But its very hard.

                      The TV licence generates over £4bn a year, but to put it in context, thats a relatively small sum compared with the amounts Apple, etc are spending on content. And before people say that if all on screen talent was paid in luncheon vouchers and their taxi fare, then everything would be OK, look at this.

                      Thats the breakdown from 2015 of how the budget is spent, and Brianist went on to explain that all the onscreen talent (not just presenters, but also actors nd performers, including the extras on Eastenders) costs in total £188m a year in 2015. So a small part of the total spend. The BBC tends to pay people less than the going rate for much of its talent, because they quite like working for the BBC. But there is a market out there, both in front and behind the camera. A guy got seriously hacked off with me on UKFree.TV a couple of years back when he stated that the BBC executives ere all overpaid. When I asked him how they were overpaid in relation to the market rate paid by the rest of the industry, he got stroppy, and then finally abusive. The reality is that the BBC isnt generous with its pay, looking at the market. That doesnt mean that I dont think that many presenters etc are overpaid - the Today programme makes me swear at my radio, because so many are utterly clueless, but thats another matter.

                      The licence fee is less than £3 a week. For that I get BBC1, 2, 4, CBBC, Cbeebies, BBC 24 News, BBC3 via streaming, Iplayer (including a large archive and modern programmes available in HD, including boxsets), BBC Sounds, BBC Radio 1, 1xtra, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, plus Asian network, Gaelic and Welsh channels, World Service (which is awesome), Long Wave (although the cost per listener much be higher than the licence fee per viewer, if they even have one), local radio, BBC News, Weather, the main website itself, which includes background on programmes, education, etc.

                      Thats a pretty good value for £2.79 a week. I have bigger things to worry about.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Originally posted by Bonekicker View Post


                        Thats a pretty good value for £2.79 a week. I have bigger things to worry about.

                        Perfect summing up of an excellent post.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by Bonekicker View Post

                          Brianist over on UKfree.TV did a whole series of how you could replace the licence fee, the BBC and its future, etc. And pretty much all the alternatives to the licence fee had major problems - someone was going to complain somewhere. If you wanted the BBC to become a subscription service, then OK, but that would cost a lot more money, (especially equipment), and you would have less choice, and a lot less access. It might also bankrupt Sky. Adverts would certainly bankrupt ITV.
                          I'm sorry Bonekicker, I'm going to have to disagree with you on a couple of points there. Firstly, I seriously doubt the BBC would be a threat to Sky if they decided to take the subscription route. I would say Sky's main attraction is the sport packages, which is the sole reason I have it myself. The BBC could never come up with the money to pay for the rights to show live Premier League football, let alone other sports events such as rugby, cricket, etc.

                          As for 'Brianist' explaining about on-screen talent, well one's definition of talent could be different to another. I just do not accept that any presenter is worth £1.7 million to host a highlights show. It's not a job that demands exceptional talent, and is something which could be done by anybody with football knowledge and a good personality, for which I'm sure there are others capable of doing it for less money. It is only their "going rate" if there are other broadcasters foolish enough to pay that sort of money. If ITV wanted him for example, then that's fine seeing as their money comes from advertising, and not from taxpayers like ourselves.

                          Ultimately, it's about choice. I wouldn't generally quibble over a couple of quid a week and I do agree with you that the BBC does make good programmes too including radio. But I think this discussion all started because viewers aren't given the option to opt out of paying for the BBC.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            How did the zebra get his stripes, Bonekicker? By propagandising for the BBC?

                            I'll solve this mystery one of these days.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X