tv licence an iniquitous tax

[louisiana]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'trying to get a sense of how worried we should be

> about destabilisation in the Middle East, - sounds

> quite negative to me. A lot of people think the

> unrest and destabilisation is a good thing.

> Although I may be reading into that comment too

> much.

Those are the words of the poster, Alec John Moore, talking about whether he should be concerned or not, not the BBC, so I'm a little mystified about how that should be interpreted as a black mark against the BBC.

There are many possible scenarios, going from individual quiet revolutions Portugal-style, through to Islamist takeovers across a series of states, via oil at $200, ?300 or more (which pretty much leads to shut-down of the Western economies). I think some countries may go down the former route but surely it is of interest to hear informed views about what is going on on the streets, and the likelihood of different scenarios along a wide spectrum?

I'm not exactly surprised that the Israeli media is reporting extensive continuing support for Mubarak among Israeli decision-makers, with criticism of the US and Obama for failing to continue to support him. The Israelis are perhaps the most "worried" of all, with lots of talk about Islamist takeover. Scaremongering in my books.

I'd agree with Alec that the Beeb is giving a lot of time to a good range of extensive analysis on current developments, some of them pretty sophisticated. Really liked the Fulbright guy this morning at 8am talking about why Egyptian soldiers might not support Mubarak in practice. Another commentator (academic) compares Tunisia with fall of Berlin wall...

>

> In regards to the Israeli coverage I think it was

> the coverage of the incident with the ship coming

> into Gaza.

[Alec John Moore]

In a fluid situation as seems to be the case in Egypt at the moment I find it really useful to have the BBC's analysis alongside the voices of Egyptian people commenting on the changes in their society. The events could turn out to be momentous and may well have a really positive effect on the region - time will tell. My point is that our/most people's engagement with the situation is mediated by the BBC, largely, and that can only happen in the way it does if we pay a licence fee or find a similar method for funding the organisation that maintains its quality of reporting and analysis and its independence.

[david_carnell]

One only has to attempt to watch television in the USA to see where a lack of well-funded public broadcasters leads.

For every HBO masterpiece there is Fox News and a thousand shopping channels and all of it decimated by a frequency of adverts that makes your eyes bleed.

The BBC is one of our best assets as a nation and should be protected.

[jumpinjackflash]

I've also been glued to the Egypt situation on SKY News and find their reporting to be unbiased, very informative and they have also had various analysis on the situation from Egyptian and non-Egyptian Middle East experts and analysts. Their reporter has been out on the streets speaking with the Egyptian people. What I'm saying is that there is nothing the BBC are doing that Sky are not.

[Alec John Moore]

Does Sky have an equivalent to Radio 4? My personal circumstances mean that I rarely get access to a TV screen and then its either Tracey Beaker or Mario Kart Wii. Oh, and a rented dvd on a Saturday night.

[jumpinjackflash]

I see..thought you were watching BBC TV. You can listen to the radio through the TV! But no they don't have radio.

[louisiana]

Well the Beeb has an obligation to provide a wide range of radio formats and cannot bill the radio listeners for it. That is public service. Sky doesn't do it.

[louisiana]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One only has to attempt to watch television in the

> USA to see where a lack of well-funded public

> broadcasters leads.

>

> For every HBO masterpiece there is Fox News and a

> thousand shopping channels and all of it decimated

> by a frequency of adverts that makes your eyes

> bleed.

>

> The BBC is one of our best assets as a nation and

> should be protected.

David you're forgetting the twenty preacher channels wherever you are in the US, preaching fire and brimstone and hatred.

The day we have the TV service like they have in places like Italy and the US, I'll jump off a cliff, and that's a promise.

[Annette Curtain]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One only has to attempt to watch television in the

> USA to see where a lack of well-funded public

> broadcasters leads.

>

> For every HBO masterpiece there is Fox News and a

> thousand shopping channels and all of it decimated

> by a frequency of adverts that makes your eyes

> bleed.

>

> The BBC is one of our best assets as a nation and

> should be protected.

Hear, hear.

Watching TV stateside is sheer hell (I even discovered diseases that I didn't know I had in the ad break)

I very like the BBC ( though currently the archers is annoying me somewhat (6))

d_c push some buttons in high places will you, see if can ( sic ) get something done about it.

:)A.

[Floating Onion]

I know of lots of people overseas who would very happily pay the license fee (or even more) just to have access to iplayer.

[zeban]

US TV is truly terrible but not having the BBC wouldn't turn British TV into US TV- what about ITV and Channel 4 for example which I watch much more of than the BBC, especially Channel 4.

All I'm saying is I don't see the BBC as fulfilling any kind of 'public service'and the view that it does is maybe more sentimentalism/ nostalgia than the reality of it. Unless I'm missing something amazing on the BBC that someone can fill me in on?

I do prefer the BBC news to ITV, but just because it uses less emotive/obvious language it doesn't make it completely unbiased. Personally I read around a subject no matter where I originally see it because there's always more than one side to every story.

[Alec John Moore]

From the BBC's Royal Charter:

The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows?

(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;

(b)promoting education and learning;

©stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;

(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;

(e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;

(f)in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

Channel 4's remit:

The Channel's primary purpose is the fulfilment of its public service remit, which was most recently defined in the 2003 Communications Act. This states that "the public service remit for Channel 4 is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular:

(a) demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programmes;

(b) appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society;

© makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value; and

(d) exhibits a distinctive character."

As a publisher-broadcaster, Channel 4 does not produce its own programmes but commissions them from more than 300 independent production companies across the UK, a far greater number than any other broadcaster, including the whole of the BBC. It works very closely with the independent production sector, and invests heavily in training and talent development throughout the industry.

What Sky is all about:

http://annualreview2010.sky.com/what_sky_is_all_about/Default.aspx

[SeanMacGabhann]

It's the very fact that the BBC exists that ITV and C4 have to been seen to compete with them - the BBC sure isn't perfect but if it goes, the plunge downmarket from the other stations will be swift

[david_carnell]

It's the very fact that the BBC exists that ITV and C4 have to been seen to compete with them - the BBC sure isn't perfect but if it goes, the plunge downmarket from the other stations will be swift

See Channel 5

[SeanMacGabhann]

you mean just "Five" I'm sure (pedantic, I know) but to be fair to it it's not as bad as when it started

[SeanMacGabhann]

you mean just "Five" I'm sure ;-) but to be fair to it it's not as bad as when it started

[DulwichFox]

I would of said that you DO Need a License to view via BBC iPlayer...

BUT....

iPlayer Doesn't Require A TV Licence... Yet

Post categories: iplayer, licencefee

Ashley Highfield | 15:20 UK time, Wednesday, 9 January 2008

A question I often get asked is whether you need a TV licence to watch BBC programmes over the internet.

At the moment, the legal position is that you don't need a licence to watch TV purely on-demand, but you do if you are watching TV live (through any receiving device in the home).

[End Quote]

Source:- BBC Internet Blog

So, Who Knows.??

[Annette Curtain]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> you mean just "Five" I'm sure (pedantic, I know)

> but to be fair to it it's not as bad as when it

> started

Oh dear, now even @ SM has been dumbed down.

( quick somebody, throw a bucket of water over him )

:-SA.

[louisiana]

Floating Onion Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I know of lots of people overseas who would very

> happily pay the license fee (or even more) just to

> have access to iplayer.

There are peeps overseas who pay third parties for access to BBC transmissions. For the third parties, that is their business. Some of the people are my friends, and could not survive without.

[louisiana]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would of said that you DO Need a License to view

> via BBC iPlayer...

DulwichFox, it's quite simple really:

1. You need a licence to watch iplayer *LIVE* programming (i.e. simultaneous to live TV broadcast) Broadcast.

You will be prompted about whether you understand that (i.e. do you have a TV licence?) the first time you do it, as I previously posted.

2. You *don't* need a licence to watch catch-up. Narrowcast. What Ashley calls 'on-demand'.

So if you watch iplayer *as the programme is being broadcast*, you need a licence.

And if you always watch yesterday's everything, you don't.

Simple.

[acumenman]

Many people assume we would immediately follow the American route were it not for the BBC.

There are other options for example in Germany they have ten minutes of adds before the programmes start, and then no interruptions throughout the programme. Some would prefer that system.

My view is that the BBC is soooo expensive for what you get, compared with a Sky or Virgin package.

It is so top heavy with management roughly by a factor of x5 if costs are anything to go by.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Virgin and sky don't make very much tho do they? Sky getting much better but neither comes close to the breadth of BBC tv, radio and web

[louisiana]

Sky is entirely financially supported by Sky Sport. And costs twice as much as the BBC licence. And has no radio...

[louisiana]

acumenman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Many people assume we would immediately follow the

> American route were it not for the BBC.

>

Well the US and Italian/Spanish etc. models are pretty widespread. Italian telly has to be the worst in the world though. It's my Italian and Spanish friends that pay third parties to access the BBC via iplayer.

[helena handbasket]

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Floating Onion Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I know of lots of people overseas who would

> very

> > happily pay the license fee (or even more) just

> to

> > have access to iplayer.

>

> There are peeps overseas who pay third parties for

> access to BBC transmissions. For the third

> parties, that is their business. Some of the

> people are my friends, and could not survive

> without.

The BBC has really dropped the ball on that one as a revenue source. WE're now in Canada and would happily pay the fee. It's amazing how many people I know here who have illegal access. My husband and I are total luddites so have not figured out how yet and are reduced to BBC Canada, which is 24 hour Top gear, Antiques Roadshow, and Escape to the Country. From 2003. Thankfully we can at least get BBC News online.

Apparently ipad in North America will be selling an iplayer app in February, has actually made us consider buying one for the access.

I think you have to live in a media black hole to truly appreciate the value of the amazing BBC.

Spelling edit.