And first I would like to say 'thanks' for all those who contributed and 'sorry' that it kicked off like it did (no I'm not, it's (nearly) all interesting stuff and what the usenet is all about eh)!
Anyway, I *think* we have come to the conclusion that the spirit of the whole thing is that we don't need a TV licence if we don't watch broadcast information and to help pin that down don't tune our kit in or fit an aerial ;-)
Anyway, though all this debate and talking to a mate today *I* came to the conclusion the BBC should scramble their transmissions and let us pay for it if we want it?
"T i m" wrote | Anyway, though all this debate and talking to a mate today *I* | came to the conclusion the BBC should scramble their | transmissions and let us pay for it if we want it?
Quite possible, and not that unlikely in the longer term, with digital.
| (Personally I think I'd go without .. )
There lies the crux of the matter. The BBC only works as it does because it gets £whatever from 99% of households. If it were scrambled the argument would be to make it a subscription service in competition with other subscription services i.e. you could subscribe to $ky and *not* BBC if you so choose. To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of households subscribing would triple the subscription cost. There is also the dilemma of how services such as radio would be funded. At the moment everyone with a TV licence pays for radio, and as almost everyone has a TV and almost everyone listens to radio at some time or another, there is no great unfairness. However the theoretical 1/3rd of households subscribing to BBCTV might be less willing to pay for radio -- or BBC management might be less willing to divert funds from subscription TV to a lower profile activity. And much BBC radio really is a jewel in the corporation's crown.
That was what I was thinking (rather than this blanket "you use a TV therefore you pay *US*"?
To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of
If your guesstimate is right then wouldn't that reflect the perceived 'value' of their output and demonstrate why lots of people feel the licence is expensive (as do I ). We don't 'subscribe' to any services via our Cable box / no Sky etc.
There is also the
Again, I have spent what little time I actually listen to the radio (normally only in the car / bathroom) with Capital Radio' but now sometimes find myself with (as I get older I'm 47) Radio1 (especially when out of range of Capital).
However the theoretical 1/3rd of households subscribing to
Possibly. Maybe I just don't buy into this 'BBC Club' thing. I have no doubt that they 'make good TV' but it's rarely anything that interests me?
I suppose because I don't generally watch TV (in the real WATCH sense, it's often on for 'company' and to mask my Tinnitus) I think I would prefer to keep the cash (or choose another pay service to watch) more than I would miss the few programes I may loose? Not sure how 'she' could live without Corry or Enders (or whatever is on BBC) .. loosing both would be reason enough for me NOT to buy the licence!
It's still cheaper than even the most basic Sky package and far cheaper than any Sky package with a reasonable amount of content comparable to waht you get from the BBC.
"Christian McArdle" wrote | > It's still cheaper than even the most basic Sky package and | > far cheaper than any Sky package with a reasonable amount | > of content comparable to waht you get from the BBC. | Especially as much of the content of the Sky package will be | re runs of BBC programmes.
And if the BBC stops making programmes, what will Sky show in future ...
"T i m" wrote | To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of | >households subscribing would triple the subscription cost. | If your guesstimate is right then wouldn't that reflect the perceived | 'value' of their output and demonstrate why lots of people feel the | licence is expensive
That's because the majority of people are really rather stupid. The point of the BBC is that it is a public service broadcaster, not dependent on recruiting viewers for its customers (the advertisers). It should be able to do things on grounds of quality rather than commercial viability. I don't think it does that well enough.
| Again, I have spent what little time I actually listen to the radio | (normally only in the car / bathroom) with Capital Radio' but now | sometimes find myself with (as I get older I'm 47) Radio1 | (especially when out of range of Capital).
I wonder what the average age of a Radio 1 listener is now.
You are probably right, as long as you watch that much of any of it?
The sort of stuff *I* would schedule to watch just doesn't seem to be broadcast by the BBC very often (or at all?).
Like. I used to like Top Gear .. I still watch it but I'm less into this 'lifestyle' thing and more into engineering. Driven or other similar progs actually seem better as they have a greater scope.
Things like 'Countryfile' can be mildly interesting but at the end of the year it (and same with many other progs) just seems to be repeats of the years 'best bits' .. (lazy programming or what)?
Buzzcocks is ok and as I'm sitting here I can't think of much else I would rush home for? I have no interest in football, tennis, golf or athletics and think the 'soaps' are just un-entertaining?
So what would I like to see .. probably stuff that I might (not really looked) get for free via the free (non BBC) chans provided by NTL or Freeview? More varied SiFi stuff, science and technology, motor sports (not F1, Rally, / Rallycross, Go-Cart, Powerboats, Dakkar, Off Road, Hill Climb, Motorcross, extreme stuff like Monster truck or Jet boat etc etc) news / weather and something that seems very thin on the ground these days, real comedy (not this feeble American / 'Soft' stuff that's everywhere .. canned laughter n all ..). Even environmental stuff has got to be of more use / interest than being told net curtians to be 'terrible' in yet another makeover show? ;-(
I'm not saying this is good for everyone, just *I* can only watch so many deer getting chased and killed by 'big cats' .. good / clever photography or otherwise ..
Can't speak for others but *I* don't believe I get good value from the BBC for my £10 / month? *I* would rather subscribe to a couple of cable channel packs *instead* (but don't have the choice). Something that I find odd in itself in this day and age of choice and flexibility. Paying for something you don't want or need with no way to opt out without loosing every broadcast chan.? Like these mobile phone SMS scams .. getting something you don't want and didn't ask for and can't (easily) stop without turning your phone off and cutting off the aerial. Everone is up in arms about that though?
Good question .. want to start a DIY poll Owain? ;-)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.