The BBC plans to raise the television license fee to just under
I think it's bollocks, frankly. They charge us a TV liscense if we have a TV capable of recieving TV signals so they don't have adverts between programs (apart from ads for their own shows). Well what about if I don't want to watch BBC? What if I only want to watch the free TV channels? I still have to pay anyway, because the BBC are faggots.
What the fvck????
They make you people get licenses to own Television sets, or am I missing something?
The BBC is government funded. It's not like public access tv in America. It's a whole different kettle of fish.
Having no adverts is much more than what the tv license stands for. You may say you don't want to watch the BBC channels but that's a lie. You've watched BBC before and I've seen you. Even watching for a second means your using their service.
I still don't understand...
Do they make you pay a license fee to own a television set?
(PS- Our PBS is government funded)
I'm aware your PBS is governement funded but it's not the same as BBC. That's what I meant. PBS come out your taxes. The TV License is payed seperately so bascially the BBC gets more money. Currently I think it's around £130 a year.
When you buy a television you will have the pay the license fee if it is used to watch tv basically. However I think you only pay for a household rather than each individual set. This is different for rooms that are rented out and hotels etc.
Thank you for your answer Bebop.
That little bit of information is an absolute gem as it pertains to a number of debates I regularly engage in.
Lets say someone obtains a TV set but doesn't have a license...
Is there a penalty for that?
[quote=Bebop]The BBC is government funded. It's not like public access tv in America. It's a whole different kettle of fish.
Having no adverts is much more than what the tv license stands for. You may say you don't want to watch the BBC channels but that's a lie. You've watched BBC before and I've seen you. Even watching for a second means your using their service.
You're missing my point. I think it's out of order that you're not allowed to watch free channels without paying a TV liscense. £200 is gay, you almost that much for a Sky subscription. BBC as of late is incredibly crap anyway, all they show is house remodelling.
[quote=Speedfreak]BBC as of late is incredibly crap anyway, all they show is house remodelling.
All they ever air on BBC America lately are reruns of EastEnders and Flying Circus. I never really got the point of BBC America, anyhow.
But the whole concept of a televison license sounds pretty ridiculous.
[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/[/URL]
It wasn't when it started. The BBC was the only TV station in Britain (if not the world...I think) and was run by the govornment. The idea of getting money through advertising had never come up, so they just charged money to anyone buying a TV. They kept the TV liscense so they basically weren't "run" by people advertising on their channel, unlike other channels. Which is why you end up with so much mainstream crap on pretty much every non-BBC TV channel in the world, because the higher the ratings the more money they get. BBC kinda sideslipped it by just charging everyone the same fee so they could concentrate on making quality TV shows, as opposed to popular ones. I think that's how it works, anyway, Bebop probably knows more than me.
I admit they aren't as bad as other channels (Big Brother SEVEN?), but they're still getting pretty gay, so the TV liscense just doesn't seem worth it. Case in point, I literally do not watch TV ever anymore, there is NEVER ANYTHING on TV. Maybe at some point when everyone uses digital TV they can scrap the liscensing fee and just turn it into a channal package fee, so people aren't forced into it.
that is bad news.
Might as well start charging citizens to access the internet, because a single gubment funded site is now ad-free! What a ridiculous law.
Apaprently the ABC (our equivalent to the Beeb) and all its subsidiaries costs the average citizen roughly 7 cents a day to run. I can't imagine that the Beeb costs too much more than that, even though it's got more resources. Seems like it'd be better funded from the general budget instead of from a separate tax, especially one so archaic.
So fund it the from general budget then, the separate tax idea seems awfully cumbersome.
That'd mean that people without TVs would have to pay for it regardless, though.
[quote=sniper]Might as well start charging citizens to access the internet, because a single gubment funded site is now ad-free! What a ridiculous law.
YOU ALREADY PAY TO ACCESS THE INTERNET YOU MORON. THE INTERNET DOESN'T RUN FOR FREE.
The TV license is about as morally wrong as charging money for video games. If videogames were free they'd be full of adverts and always conform to the mainstream gamer. ANYONE HERE WANT THAT? I SURE DON'T.
The only problem I have for it is, to use the game analogy, having to pay for Sony-produced games that I don't want to play just because I own a PS2.
We need the licence fee. How else is the BBC going to get funded? If we didn't have the BBC Britain would lose it's boradcasting independance. Quality would plummit so low it would be like watching ABC or CNN.
Think about some of your favorite British Tv shows. How many of them are made by the BBC? Monty Pythons Flying Circus, Only Fools and Horses, The Office, Little Britain, Monkey Dust, Red Dwarf and Fawlty Towers come to mind. And alot of these named shows wouldn't have got as far as the pilot on the other channels. I think people owe the BBC alot more than they realize.
[quote=Arwon] So fund it the from general budget then, the separate tax idea seems awfully cumbersome.
If we did that the BBC would not receive as much money quite frankly. This is how American public tv is funded and look how crap that is. If we switched funding methods the BBC would fall in quality.
No.
Not necessarily, the ABC and SBS here do a lot of quality stuff even though they don't have a separate funding taax, and the ABC's radio station Triple J is one of the best around. What about the CBC and whatever the **** France's public station is called? The Americans' attitude to publically run services is seldom a guide to the way any other 1st world country runs... they do things weirdly there.
The television license is an extremely odd relic of a bygone era. But then, most aspects of westminster constitutional monarchy fit that description yet it seems to work okay.
[QUOTE=Arwon]Not necessarily, the ABC and SBS here do a lot of quality stuff even though they don't have a separate funding taax,
Every station has quality shows and every station has bad shows. BBC is no different. It;s just that BBC's high quality shows are better than, say, ABC's quality shows.
[quote] The Americans' attitude to publically run services is seldom a guide to the way any other 1st world country runs... they do things weirdly there.
I think America would benefit from a station run like the BBC. It sure would reduce alot of the garbage in the tv airwaves.
I need some clearing up on this ABC matter. How pulically funded are they? We have ABC over here on digital packages and it follows other American station format of adverts every 5 seconds.
That's the American ABC.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation basically functions like the BBC.
I mean it's publically funded advertising free, and has branches in all different fields of media, like the Beeb, and is independent, like the Beeb.
I think you should only pay the fee if you watch the BBC. (rhyme)
But then again, such is the problem of having state-funded (controlled) media.
If the government ran newspapers, we'd be expected to pay a tax on them as well.
I heard something a while ago about a debate in the government about whether or not to flag the TV license and introduce a computer tax instead... any truth to that?
EDIT: Found it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1508650,00.html
Advertising free = lacks adverts
Didn't we already go over the "ABC in America != ABC in Australia" thing?[url=http://www.abc.net.au/]Australian Broadcasting Corporation[/url] equivalent to the Beeb. [url=http://abc.go.com/]American ABC with, like, Desperate Housewives and stuff that is indistinguishable from NBC and CBS[/url].
The issue of quality is pretty difficult to measure. the A(ustralian)BC has declined in quality in recent years, but then, Australian TV and film in general has also done so. What's more, we're a smaller country with a less vibrant field of creative talent in the first place. It's no coincidence that everyone from Germaine Greer, to Kylie Minogue to Nick Cave have found it necessary to move to Europe...
That said, we still get some quality from it. Media Watch is brilliant, Triple J is the only nationally broadcast "yoof" radio station and an important promoter of Aussie music outside of the corporate KLONE-FM sludge, many an off-beat comedy has gotten a good run, the news and current affairs is good, ABC radio is everywhere, etc etc. We do okay for 7 cents per person per day (that's roughly what the funding for it all works out to), and the lack of comparability to the Beeb is due to other factors than its funding structure.
At any rate, I'm not convinced that the quality of the Beeb has anything to do with the structure of its funding. You yourself have pointed to the BBC's charter and laws as important, and I'm sure the culture of the place is important too. I just don't buy that having a weird separate revenue source has anything at all to do with keeping it funded and well-run. The main functions are to promote content that's important but not commercially viable, and to maintain editorial independence and so forth, as well as promote cultural stuff that wouldn't otherwise get promoted. Like the Australian public broadcasters, and, no doubt, public broadcasters in other countries (France? Canada?), it would be possible to keep functioning well if it were funded from general revenue.
What's more, I'd point out that the TV license is a highly regressive tax... hits low-income people much harder and has the effect of tending to limit access to these "important" sources of culture and information.
Gah I me'sa getting America and Austrailia confused. They both begin with A!
IIt only hits low-income people more harder becuase £100 is worth more to them.
The quality is down to the licence. Quite simply because each programme will get more funding. Think of Neighbors. Now I'm not sure if this is produced by the ABC but it is Austrailen. If Neighbors received the same funding as say Eastenders, BBC's very own soap opera, there would be more money towards buidling of sets, equipment and even towards script writers and actors.
Ideally you could watch Eastenders and Coronation Street, a highly succesfful soap opera proudced by an indi network in England, and see the difference in quality and the way it's produced. With more money theres more stuff to spend it on. Think of it in terms of special effects. ABC gets men in plastic suits but because BBC recieve lots more money from the tv licence they can afford Industril Light and Magic.
"It only hits low-income people more harder becuase
I didn't know what 'regressive tax' meant. I'm too lazy to find out. I took a stab in the dark.
I said I wasnt sure if Neihbors was ABC owned but its the best example I have of an Austrailien soap and I needed to use it for my compariosn.
Neighbors appears on BBC 2 if you wanted to know. Aside from Hollywood productions and the such its one of the few imported programmes on the BBC.
I also ask you think of your 10 favorite shows from Britianand I can guantee that the majority will be created from the BBC. If that's not proof of the BBCs quality I don't know what is.
If I say Black Books and Father Ted do I win a prize for knowing they're not BBC? And does the BBC lose points for friggin' Absolutely Fabulous?
Also I'd point out that my favourite shows ever were made by Fox and Comedy Central... does that mean Fox is quality?
And it could be argued that anticompetitive practises have limited the ability of other networks to break into the market. BBC probably produces more shows over-all as well as more decent ones. (:
It's not necessarily the ratings where compedition is an issue, although the guaranteed source of revenue certainly gives a significant edge... it is also the dominance over the pools of talent and the high visibility and the long-term credibility the Beeb has going for it. BBC seems to have a near hegemonic dominance of British television and radio and so forth.
Moreover, as in most other countries with an equally anti-competitive situation for free-to-air TV (including Australia and the US which both also only have a handful of networks), the tight control of TV broadcast rights limits the number of channels that can broadcast. It's a very difficult market to enter.
And yeah I do concede that most good British comedies are BBC ones. The Young Ones, Blackadder, Little Britain and Monty Python is is pretty hard to argue with even if there's plenty of bad Beeb comedies too. Actually I'd venture that most British comedies are BBC ones, full stop.
Actually, the BBC isn't government-funded, it's been a completely separate entity from the government for years, they just have the right to charge for their service in the same way cable TV operators have the right to sue you for installing illegal cable descramblers
If you don't want to pay the license, though, you can just not attach an ariel, use it for videos and cable/sky etc. (at least I think you can do that... :dunno: )
I seem to be the only person in this thread that actually has a TV licence. And I can say, as someone who gets it for a student apartment, I get shafted completely. It's
Fun fact - The licence fee is lower for a monochrome TV than for if you're blind with a colour TV (or at least that's how it used to be, haven't checked it)
There was nothing fun about that fact and you know it.
Yes there was! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside! You just said that to be hurtful *Runs off to cry and listen to some emo*
:o I know what'll cheer me up! Fun facts!