There are no people in Britain with a TV set who don't watch BBC programmes at least a part of the time. There is no TV set or viewing platform in the UK which only carries non-BBC programmes.Originally Posted by DereX888
The programmes could not have been made in the first place if it was not for the unique way the BBC is funded. No licence fee = no DVDsOriginally Posted by DereX888
Incidentally I am a DVD distributor with unlimited access to movies so probably watch TV less than anyone else in the UK and on the few occasions I do tune in it is invariably for a BBC programme.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 61 to 90 of 105
Thread
-
-
Two-thirds of the countries in Europe and half of the countries in Asia and Africa use television licences to fund public television so it's not as if Britian is alone in doing this. I don't think there really is a fairer way for the BBC to be funded. If the government suddenly decided to abolish it and raise everyones taxes to fund it, then of course you are going to get many people complaining that "I don't own a TV so why should I have to pay for it". When TV in the UK goes 100% digital in a few years, then there's really no excuse for the BBC not to let people decide whether or not they want it, and im sure that issue will be raised when it happens. I do think that they should change the name to the "TV Tax", simply because thats what it is.
-
Originally Posted by paulw
Also, when did New Zealand last produce a programme that anyone wanted to watch? The only NZ series I've ever heard of is "The Tribe". Compare that to BBC Wales - with a similar population - which produces the very best programmes in the world and is 100% financed by the BBC licence fee. -
Originally Posted by ntscuser
As for your argument "the person does not live in the UK" youre just silly. Hello! This is not a forum from .uk domain, neither it is any "Brits only" exclusive subforum, is it?
From one argument to next youre more and more ridiculus. We already know youre a rabid BBC-fanboi, but come on
Originally Posted by ntscuser
This is utter rubbish m WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE NEW ZEALAND TELEVISION? Ever occur to you that people of NZ may value their television much higher than your BBC?
What is wrong with you?!
( I know, youre a Brit and rabid BBC-fanboi, but your arrogance is way WAY beyond usual arrogance and high self-esteem of a typical Brit ) -
Originally Posted by DereX888
-
Originally Posted by DereX888
-
Originally Posted by paulw
You don't like this crap, I don't like fake "reality" crap, our Dutch-Brit fella above probably don't like such crap either, and many other people will agree with us "its a crap!".
However many, if not majority (unfortunately) love such shite, and 'commercial networks' know that too.
If no one would watch it, it wouldn't air in the best timeslots, obviously
Check Nielsen's (or your local equivalents) and you'll be surprised. -
Unfortunatly I fear that the people meters these day are put in the homes of the lowest common denominator,,
-
Nielseons and such like, seem to me, to be incredibly blunt instruments for gauging audience and audience reaction .........(says he, swinging the discussion away from the tired old yes/no arg).... spoiler
Personally I love the BBc licence fee and feel it should be doubled or even trebled..also I still stand up and salute the screen when they shut down and play the national anthem.Corned beef is now made to a higher standard than at any time in history.
The electronic components of the power part adopted a lot of Rubycons. -
Originally Posted by RabidDog
The anthem was traditionally played at closedown on the BBC and with the introduction of commercial television to the UK this practice was adopted by some ITV regions. BBC Two never played the anthem at closedown, and ITV dropped the practice in the late 1980s, but it continued on BBC One until 8 November 1997 (thereafter BBC1 began to simulcast with News 24 after end of programmes) -
Originally Posted by DereX888
I sometimes get asked to make a DVD recording of British TV shows for a TV critic in New York. I have only ever been asked to make recordings of BBC productions. I have never been asked to make a recording of a non-BBC production. That says it all. -
Originally Posted by DereX888
I am a "Brit" and I haven't, and don't, display the qualities that you tar us all with. Discussing a topic is what we are all here for but there is no reason to stoop this low and be offensive.
Originally Posted by DereX888
"Now that ITV is a PLC, its main aim is profit and making money for the share holders; the viewer comes in third behind them and the advetisers. Because of this situation ITV has been, in the last few years, very reliant on its big hitting Soap operas (Emmadale and Coronation Street) which are on five or six times a week now and have aimed a lot of output towards women not to mention the meteoric rise of the reality show; but it didn't have much else. This is because these programmes have an established viewer base. The casualty has been creativity; to risk new programming was to risk low ratings." So, in short, soaps and reality panders to a known minority; an audience that can usually be relied to tune in (except for Celebrity Love Island! ) is better than putting out a new programme and risk no-one tuning in at all.
Also reality television is less risky as it is relatively cheap to produce as you don't need a script or a company of actors; with the huge number of air-time to fill on the plethora of channels available now, it is also a cheap time filler.Cole -
@Cole:
You certainly don't such "qualities". My apologies for generalisation that didn't apply to you, but I'm sure you are aware of how Brits are seen abroad in general.
"Reality tv" serves networks producing it well,due to best cost to profits ratio. It is cheap to make and have plenty of viewers, thus it generates good profit. Unless general population's IQ (or at least education level) will be on the rise soon, I doubt it will ever go away. -
OK folks as someone who has lived and worked in many countries in the world, the Americas (north and south), all over Europe and the middle east but not in the far east, Australia or NZ. I had plenty of opportunity to watch TV in all these places and found the following:
1. In countries where there was no TV licence the advertising was very bad and it was more a case of having breaks for the programmes between the adverts.
2. BBC programming pops up in every country I have ever been to primarily because they tend to be of such high quality that the stations find that viewers appreciate them. The most popular tend to be the costume dramas that I should think you are all familiar with, or the documentaries that are very well done by the beeb.
3. In the UK the frequency of advertising on the commercial channels tends to be less frequent. In a one hour programme there is usually 3 commercial breaks, each of which is long enough to go get a coffee or pay a visit to the bathroom. In most other countries there is more frequent but shorter breaks. I know which I prefer - the Brit model.
On the down side the BBC wastes a lot of money and are severely overstaffed. Where a commercial station will have a crew of one camera man, one sound man etc. the BBC crew will be 3 times the size. If they were to scale back they would be able to produce more good stuff than they do but why should they as they get the licence fee regardless.
I am a Brit by birth but I'm not particularly nationalistic and certainly not the type to crow that the UK is the best. Each of the countries has good and bad about it and I can't honestly say that any one country I have lived in is any better than the others, they are just different and the same goes for the television. Currently I am living in England but when I retire in 18 months I shall be leaving to live in Spain. That's because, as others have observed it's just too expensive to live here.
Ah well having said my piece I guess I'd better get some work done, after all my company is paying me to do somethingArtificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. -
ive been reading this thread with some real interest. i like a good, passionate discussion that doesnt get bogged down with name-calling, and apart from a couple of incidents, this has been pretty good-natured, and interesting, so kudos to the lot of you.
but i figure i should add something to this discussion, after all. i am a brit who receives al the free to air tv and has a sky subscription, and i feel there are some things that have to be said.
this discussion seems to be primarily about funding broadcasting systems, and as such i think trying to evaluate the subjective quality (or lack) of content is unhelpful; we can all agree that most TV broadcasters produce good tv and bad tv: BBC has Life on Mars and it's fine natural history shows, but it also has the risible Eastenders. Much of Sky's own content is vacuous and infantile, but occasionally they pull a cracker like their Hogfather adaptation this Xmas. i'm sure the situation is the same over much of the US broadcasters. to argue that Good shows would not get made if we change the funding system just doesnt hold water.
however, the thing to be considered with the UK is one of scale: our domestic market is about the size of a US state, and not a big one either; there's a lot less scope for variety because dividing the audience gives everyone a much smaller slice of the cake, this will result in cheaper shows being made, and often cheaper equals worse quality. the licence fee locks the majority of UK viewers into forking out for the BBC; fair or not, it's the only way to ensure the level of funding needed to create certain shows here in the UK. One of the reasons britain doesnt produce many big Sci-Fi shows is because the budget would be far too prohibitive. We have the talent and the expertise, we simply cant raise the money from our small domestic market, regardless of our method.
the other point i'd like to make is that the UK licence fee is really a tax in all but name: it is set and raised by the government, and it's funds are distributed by them. some people here have suggested that it's unfair that people who dont want to watch BBC shows, but only the 'free' commercial channels, have to pay this fee. the Government anticipated this argument, and a small portion of the licence fee goes toward the funding of the commercial stations as well - so you see, the licence fee pays for ALL 'free to air' UK TV, just not equally.never absorb anything bigger than your own head -
Originally Posted by Duchess
I wonder what the proposed move to Manchester will achieve?
Originally Posted by DereX888Cole -
The Uk has a pop of 62million making it far larger than even the largest us state Calif 33mil
Corned beef is now made to a higher standard than at any time in history.
The electronic components of the power part adopted a lot of Rubycons. -
There are around 28 million households in the UK.
So £131.50 x 28,000,000 = £3,682,000,000 (7 Billion US dollars!) a year.
OK so not all of it goes to the BBC, but most TV companies in the world would kill to get even half of that. And the BBC say it's not enough... -
in this country the bbc violate our human right, we dont have the choice to choose wether or not we want to watch bbc, we have to pay their fees anayway. even if you only own a pc they expect you to buy a tv licence (so i heard) beacuse a pc is capable of picking up signal (with the right hardware). i hate the bbc, the bbc are like the monarchy imo...spongers!
-
You are wrong.
Owning a PC in the UK doesn't mean you have to buy a TV license.
It's only if you buy a TV tuner card for your PC so it can receive broadcast TV, that you have to buy a TV license.
On the other hand, I NEVER watch commercial TV (in the same way as the others NEVER watch the BBC), so why should I have to pay for their programs through the higher cost of the goods and sevices and groceries I buy due to their expenditure on TV advertising?
-
Originally Posted by KBeee
-
Originally Posted by DereX888Cole
-
I dont think ANY BBc TV progs are simulcast over the net and OTA. Ergo over the net you are watching a stored program, for which you may not need a licence. Like recording shows at your parents house and watching them yourself later, at home.
Corned beef is now made to a higher standard than at any time in history.
The electronic components of the power part adopted a lot of Rubycons. -
Originally Posted by Cole
In very near future tv/radio will be distributed only over the internet (at least in western countries - including UK).
I was referring to this soon-to-happen future situation: no OTA/terrestrial/satellite/etc currently typical forms of programming distribution. -
Originally Posted by DereX888
The average UK home has a pair of copper telephone wires and that's it. No cable, no fibre. I'm on DSL Max which is one the faster connections. Even so, between the hours of 5.00pm and 12.00pm I'm often restricted to near-dialup speeds. These are the hours when the bulk of TV viewing is done. In addition to that, the majority of broadband subscribers in the UK have contracts with download limits equivalent to around two half-hour TV programmes per month!
To be able to distribute TV via the internet in the UK would require a massive investment in new infrastructure by the telecom companies and that just isn't going to happen. Since deregulation around 20 years ago they've proved they're interested only in short term profits. The government has indicated many times it has no intention of intervening in the situation either. -
Originally Posted by KBeee
Originally Posted by bbc website
i am all for pay as you watch tv, as i dont watch it much anyway, except some good shows on channel 4 and the odd documentary here and there. perhaps also if tv was pay as you go, (pay per programme) some parents would keep a more watchful eye on some of the sh*t their children watch, but only perhaps -
ntscusrer, have you not heard of wi-max? Not that much infrastructure needed, possibly piggybacked on existing mobi-towers or via satellites. Once there is some real competition the speeds will shoot up and prices will drop. Bt delayed adsl so long only to save money and enhance shareholder profits, it could have been rolled out a decade earlier, we could be on FTTH by now. IF and WHEN most, all or some Tv is available over the internet, THEN they will have to adopt a vietnamese child, sorry better way of funding the BBC. Joost is not it and still has 2(?) years before it becomes acceptable, bittorrent is far better, but is in a grey area, as regards distributing TV
Corned beef is now made to a higher standard than at any time in history.
The electronic components of the power part adopted a lot of Rubycons. -
I can already get more digital channels than I will ever have tme to watch on freeview. Why would I need another distribution platform?
-
Perhaps because the TV companies may want to save money on the provision and maintenance of expensive transmitters by shutting them down. The government would love that too as it would give them more bandwidth to sell.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Similar Threads
-
DVR without satellite service
By chaleybrown in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 3Last Post: 27th Nov 2009, 16:30 -
Hulu to start charging for subscription based service in 2010
By freebird73717 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 11Last Post: 24th Oct 2009, 14:15 -
I just cancelled my satellite service.
By freebird73717 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 34Last Post: 25th Jul 2009, 12:38 -
Difficulties receiving BBC World Service stream
By jimdagys in forum ComputerReplies: 4Last Post: 28th Jun 2009, 19:11 -
Best Buy > UK FTA Freesat
By RabidDog in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 0Last Post: 8th May 2008, 18:17