Watching Stuff online

[Mick F]

Good point.

If NHS is paid for by The State, why not State Broadcasting?

[kwackers]

Good point.

If NHS is paid for by The State, why not State Broadcasting?

I think the BBC is supposed to be free of state interference.
Whilst that point may be up for discussion there's no doubt that if the State directly provides the funds it almost certainly can't be true. OTOH if as now it's paid for by 'the people' then there's no reason it shouldn't be the voice of the people.

In an ideal world sort of way...

[[XAP]Bob]

Given the state of TV is the US I suspect that the existence of the BBC does have a positive impact on the general output.

having not paid the lisencw for a few years it would inevitably cost me more through tax than it would as the TVL. But that's fine, it's currently an unfair cost...

[mercalia]

very little on the BBC that I want to watch - I must be getting old. When I have visited friends homes it is the offbeat channel that have the interesting stuff on them eg Horror channel: shame the picture quality not very high often

[drossall]

We pay because that's what our elected representatives have decided on our behalves. If we don't like it, we can ask them to change it. Opting out is stealing the livelihoods of people who create and broadcast programmes for us, some of whom I, and probably others here, know.

If you want to opt out without getting the law changed, don't watch stuff.

[Psamathe]

Good point.

If NHS is paid for by The State, why not State Broadcasting?

NHS represents a safety net to maintain your health (e.g. you may suffer great pain or even die early without an NHS). Same cannot be said for the BBC and some (myself included) survive quite happily without the BBC (yet have needed NHS treatment).

Can you not see the difference between providing e.g. emergency care for the bleeding cycling lying under a car on the road and having "Strictly" or "Celebrity Bake-Off" available on TV. Disappointed that you cannot see the difference.

Ian

[Psamathe]

We pay because that's what our elected representatives have decided on our behalves. If we don't like it, we can ask them to change it. Opting out is stealing the livelihoods of people who create and broadcast programmes for us, some of whom I, and probably others here, know.

If you want to opt out without getting the law changed, don't watch stuff.

What if you want to watch not BBC stuff - why should you be forced to pay for Channels you don't want to watch. Why should people not be forced to subscribe to Sky ?

Ian

[kwackers]

What if you want to watch not BBC stuff - why should you be forced to pay for Channels you don't want to watch. Why should people not be forced to subscribe to Sky ?

Ian

Has Murdoch managed to buy Sky back? I guess when he does then they'll be a state broadcaster but until then...

[pete75]

I don't have Sky. Sky is partly paid for by commercial adverts. If I buy something from a company that advertises on Sky some of my money is going to pay Sky. I cannot avoid this as I've no way of knowing what companies advertise there. The same goes for any other broadcaster that hosts commercial advertising.

Paying for the BBC is an entirely voluntary choice, paying towards Sky and other commercial broadcasters is almost impossible to avoid.

[Psamathe]

I don't have Sky. Sky is partly paid for by commercial adverts. If I buy something from a company that advertises on Sky some of my money is going to pay Sky. I cannot avoid this as I've no way of knowing what companies advertise there. The same goes for any other broadcaster that hosts commercial advertising....

You have freedom of choice. If a company behaves in a way you find unacceptable they you can avoid their products. You are free to chose and are still legally allowed to have TV receiving equipment even if you chose to avoid certain companies products.

...
Paying for the BBC is an entirely voluntary choice, paying towards Sky and other commercial broadcasters is almost impossible to avoid.

Except it isn't. It is in effect a tax on owning a TV. If you own a TV (or watch any even non-BBC) live broadcasts then you are forced to subscribe to the BBC. BBC is a content provider so ownership of receiving equipment hardware should be unrelated to ownership of certain consumer products (e.g. you can legally own equipment that can receive Sky broadcasts without being forced to subscribe to Sky).

And the freedom of choice is badly linked in the case of the BBC. For example, I strongly disagreed with Top Gear (in the Clarkson days) - yet I was forced to contribute to it through my forced BBC subscription because I do want a TV and don't want to watch the BBC.

Linking the compulsory BBC subscription to watching non-BBC TV is morally wrong. People who don't want to watch the BBC are forced to subsidise those who do whilst providing unfair competition of the commercial broadcasters (i.e. they are having to compete with a big broadcaster who is not subject to commercial pressures).

Ian

[pete75]

I don't have Sky. Sky is partly paid for by commercial adverts. If I buy something from a company that advertises on Sky some of my money is going to pay Sky. I cannot avoid this as I've no way of knowing what companies advertise there. The same goes for any other broadcaster that hosts commercial advertising....

You have freedom of choice. If a company behaves in a way you find unacceptable they you can avoid their products. You are free to chose and are still legally allowed to have TV receiving equipment even if you chose to avoid certain companies products.

...
Paying for the BBC is an entirely voluntary choice, paying towards Sky and other commercial broadcasters is almost impossible to avoid.

Except it isn't. It is in effect a tax on owning a TV. If you own a TV (or watch any even non-BBC) live broadcasts then you are forced to subscribe to the BBC. BBC is a content provider so ownership of receiving equipment hardware should be unrelated to ownership of certain consumer products (e.g. you can legally own equipment that can receive Sky broadcasts without being forced to subscribe to Sky).

And the freedom of choice is badly linked in the case of the BBC. For example, I strongly disagreed with Top Gear (in the Clarkson days) - yet I was forced to contribute to it through my forced BBC subscription because I do want a TV and don't want to watch the BBC.

Linking the compulsory BBC subscription to watching non-BBC TV is morally wrong. People who don't want to watch the BBC are forced to subsidise those who do whilst providing unfair competition of the commercial broadcasters (i.e. they are having to compete with a big broadcaster who is not subject to commercial pressures).

Ian

Of course paying for the BBC is a voluntary choice. If you don't want to pay don't get a TV. If you do want a TV you have to pay.

I didn't say the practices of companies which advertise on Sky are unacceptable. I said that when I buy their products I am also paying something towards Sky. Even if you did want to avoid all organisations that pay commercial broadcasters to advertise it's impossible.

The simple fact is it's a damn sight easier to avoid paying money to the BBC than it is to commercial broadcasters.

[Psamathe]

...
Of course paying for the BBC is a voluntary choice. If you don't want to pay don't get a TV. If you do want a TV you have to pay.
...

It is linking two unrelated things. Ownership of TV reception equipment is does not require you to watch BBC content. BBC take money and buy-in/produce content which people may or may not chose to watch. Sky take money and buy-in/produce content which people may or may not chose to pay for. Dave (and many other free to air TV channels) buy-in/produce content which people may or may not chose to watch.

Why should one company be considered a "state broadcaster" (when nothing they do seems related to "state broadcasting" - whatever that is these days) and so be exempt from commercial pressures and have the population forced to subscribe should they happen to own a particular piece of electronic equipment (that can also be used as a screen for your computer/tablet/phone, as a radio, to download internet content to, to view your photos on, etc.).

Ian

...
I didn't say the practices of companies which advertise on Sky are unacceptable. I said that when I buy their products I am also paying something towards Sky. Even if you did want to avoid all organisations that pay commercial broadcasters to advertise it's impossible.

The simple fact is it's a damn sight easier to avoid paying money to the BBC than it is to commercial broadcasters.

It's a question of choice. You can chose to avoid companies whose adverts/practices you do not approve of. I tend by default to avoid companies who advertise a lot (an automatic decision of mine). But if you want to watch any TV, etc. (but NOT BBC) then you must buy a BBC TV License.

To not subscribe to the BBC means also not doing a lot of other things that are nothing to do with the BBC.

Ian

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 ... uidelines/

"With more than 180,000 people charged with not paying their licence fee each year, prosecutions currently account for around one in 10 of all criminal cases in England and Wales.
More than 99 per cent of all those convicted receive a fine of up to £1,000, which nets the government almost £30 million a year."

"The sooner the BBC get a grip on reality and recognise move to a subscription model the better. If they are so convinced of its value for money then they have nothing to fear from such a move."

[pete75]

I tend by default to avoid companies who advertise a lot (an automatic decision of mine).
Ian

Well most commercial broadcasters, including Sky, advertise a lot so avoid them by not having a TV.

[kwackers]

Hi,
"The sooner the BBC get a grip on reality and recognise move to a subscription model the better. If they are so convinced of its value for money then they have nothing to fear from such a move."[/i]

Hardly surprising the Torygraph are keen to get rid of the beeb. Even if you don't watch it the beeb has value in that it moderates other channels.
I think the beeb should be paid for by taxes on other broadcasters, more; I think there should be a newspaper equivalent paid for from taxes on other media also.

It's time to straighten out the mire that is news. When folk are bored of experts, when alt-news and alt-facts are considered 'ok' then we're all screwed.