Watching Stuff online

[Psamathe]

I can chose to use a bike and not pay and still have transport.

Yes and you can choose to read books for your entertainment and knowledge gathering and not pay and you can listen to the wireless for entertainment and news and not pay.

Question of impact on one's life. I feel in my location and lifestyle that it is impractical for me to totally give up using my car and switch to using a bicycle. For others it is far more practical (some who post here have done so, some never even had a car).

TVs have for many become part of our society (keeping up with information, news, etc. and the BBC is not central to that). So nothing you have said to me justifies a "State Broadcaster" (or rather a "State Broadcaster" doing what the BBC is doing) and nothing justifies linking a compulsory subscription to owning hardware.

I can legally own a car that is not VED exempt and keep it on my drive with a SORN. It is only when I want to make use of the roads public that I have to pay VED. Same should apply to the BBC, it is only when I want to watch the BBC that I need to take out a subscription.

As you clearly think otherwise can you explain why we need a "State Broadcaster" and in what way the BBC fulfils that "State Broadcasting" role? Because from what I can see of the BBC schedules they seem to divert the bulk of their resources into mainstream "me to" blockbusters that the commercial channels would love to have (e.g. Channel 4 buying Bake-Off, Amazon snapping-up the Top Gear Team). They seem to be focusing on getting viewer ratings more than what people often quote is the idea that they make quality programs that would not otherwise be made for commercial reasons - maybe if they focused on that role I'd be happier about a compulsory subscription!

Ian

[kwackers]

I can legally own a car that is not VED exempt and keep it on my drive with a SORN. It is only when I want to make use of the roads public that I have to pay VED. Same should apply to the BBC, it is only when I want to watch the BBC that I need to take out a subscription.

Poor analogy, since you can legally own a TV and not pay a license. You only pay for the license if you "take it for a drive".

divert the bulk of their resources into mainstream "me to" blockbusters that the commercial channels would love to have (e.g. Channel 4 buying Bake-Off, Amazon snapping-up the Top Gear Team).

Top Gear & Bake Off were initially cheap programs. They became 'mainstream' later, so I'm not convinced they were putting the 'bulk' of their resources into them, particularly as both made a profit for the beeb.

[Psamathe]

I can legally own a car that is not VED exempt and keep it on my drive with a SORN. It is only when I want to make use of the roads public that I have to pay VED. Same should apply to the BBC, it is only when I want to watch the BBC that I need to take out a subscription.

Poor analogy, since you can legally own a TV and not pay a license. You only pay for the license if you "take it for a drive". ;)

divert the bulk of their resources into mainstream "me to" blockbusters that the commercial channels would love to have (e.g. Channel 4 buying Bake-Off, Amazon snapping-up the Top Gear Team).

Top Gear & Bake Off were initially cheap programs. They became 'mainstream' later, so I'm not convinced they were putting the 'bulk' of their resources into them, particularly as both made a profit for the beeb.

I agree about analogies - they have limitations.

When you look at the resources BBC pour into e.g. their Sat evening programs (Strictly, Dr Who, etc.) these are not programs that the Commercial competitors would not make. The commercial channels do and with success (e.g. the Sat evening slots where BBC put their mega expensive game shows up against the commercial changes (e.g. ITVs) game shows all competing for audiences with highly paid celebrities.

Is this the job of a "State Broadcaster" ? Because it seems what the BBC is about these days. If they were focusing on informative documentaries (not the "blockbuster" mini-series type with endless expensive needless overseas travel) or quality drama (not my taste but I fully accept that the BBC is not there to cater for my taste) or useful content that the commercial broadcasters would not make/use because it is not commercial enough for them - then fine. But to me that is not what the BBC are about. So the TV Licence is in effect a compulsory subscription.

I fully accept that some love all sorts of different aspects of the BBC content/style/etc. which is fine - so they can pay for it and I'll stick to watching (and paying for - where necessary) content/channels I chose to watch. I don't see that as complex or inconsiderate. I don't see how my being forced to contribute to "Strictly", etc. is "for the good of society" (or even anything the State should be involved with).

Ian

[kwackers]

When you look at the resources BBC pour into e.g. their Sat evening programs (Strictly, Dr Who, etc.) these are not programs that the Commercial competitors would not make. The commercial channels do and with success (e.g. the Sat evening slots where BBC put their mega expensive game shows up against the commercial changes (e.g. ITVs) game shows all competing for audiences with highly paid celebrities.

Again, a lot of the stuff the beeb make (Dr Who as you give it as an example) makes a profit by selling it around the world.
FWIW the beeb don't actually make that much. Most of the tat you see on a Saturday evening, far from being expensive is the cheap nonsense that for some reason folk like to watch.
A lot of what the beeb does is pay small production companies to make things for them. They then show them and occasionally they become popular, some don't but are still worthwhile because they're educational or informative.
Sometimes when they become popular and the contract is up the company making them asks too much and the beeb turns them down - as in the case of Bakeoff.

The point is the beeb put a lot of money into small production companies making niche stuff that commercial broadcasters simply wouldn't touch so I think it's a bit rich when folk complain that those that become popular (and thus profitable) are an indication of the beebs 'me too' mentality.
There are plenty of informative beeb programs, usually on BBC4 but the beeb still has to fill its schedule and sometimes perhaps it does it in a way that's probably a bit too cheap and tacky. But then Saturday night audiences aren't too demanding...

That's not to say I think the everything at the beeb is rosy, just that like a lot of stuff the difference between what we think and reality is more chasm like than ideally it should be.

[Psamathe]

When you look at the resources BBC pour into e.g. their Sat evening programs (Strictly, Dr Who, etc.) these are not programs that the Commercial competitors would not make. The commercial channels do and with success (e.g. the Sat evening slots where BBC put their mega expensive game shows up against the commercial changes (e.g. ITVs) game shows all competing for audiences with highly paid celebrities.

Again, a lot of the stuff the beeb make (Dr Who as you give it as an example) makes a profit by selling it around the world.
FWIW the beeb don't actually make that much. Most of the tat you see on a Saturday evening, far from being expensive is the cheap nonsense that for some reason folk like to watch.
A lot of what the beeb does is pay small production companies to make things for them. They then show them and occasionally they become popular, some don't but are still worthwhile because they're educational or informative.
Sometimes when they become popular and the contract is up the company making them asks too much and the beeb turns them down - as in the case of Bakeoff.

The point is the beeb put a lot of money into small production companies making niche stuff that commercial broadcasters simply wouldn't touch so I think it's a bit rich when folk complain that those that become popular (and thus profitable) are an indication of the beebs 'me too' mentality.
There are plenty of informative beeb programs, usually on BBC4 but the beeb still has to fill its schedule and sometimes perhaps it does it in a way that's probably a bit too cheap and tacky. But then Saturday night audiences aren't too demanding...

That's not to say I think the everything at the beeb is rosy, just that like a lot of stuff the difference between what we think and reality is more chasm like than ideally it should be.

But if I don't want to watch it and would rather watch content from other providers, why should I be forced to pay for it, to subsidise those who do enjoy watching it. Why should not those who love the BBC be forced to subsidise those who love Sky or Netflix or any of the now many other providers (who also buy in a lot of their stuff and seem to manage to avoid the endless antiques and baking programs).

Ian

[kwackers]

But if I don't want to watch it and would rather watch content from other providers, why should I be forced to pay for it, to subsidise those who do enjoy watching it. Why should not those who love the BBC be forced to subsidise those who love Sky or Netflix or any of the now many other providers (who also buy in a lot of their stuff and seem to manage to avoid the endless antiques and baking programs).

Ian

And we're simply back to the "I don't use it why should I pay for it" argument, which tbh there's no answer for.
Like roads, cycle tracks, schools, council services, litter picking, oil subsidies, police, libraries etc etc.
Society is a rich tapestry of services, we all pay so much and use so few of them...

[pete75]

I can chose to use a bike and not pay and still have transport.

Yes and you can choose to read books for your entertainment and knowledge gathering and not pay and you can listen to the wireless for entertainment and news and not pay.

Question of impact on one's life. I feel in my location and lifestyle that it is impractical for me to totally give up using my car and switch to using a bicycle. For others it is far more practical (some who post here have done so, some never even had a car).

TVs have for many become part of our society (keeping up with information, news, etc. and the BBC is not central to that). So nothing you have said to me justifies a "State Broadcaster" (or rather a "State Broadcaster" doing what the BBC is doing) and nothing justifies linking a compulsory subscription to owning hardware.

I can legally own a car that is not VED exempt and keep it on my drive with a SORN. It is only when I want to make use of the roads public that I have to pay VED. Same should apply to the BBC, it is only when I want to watch the BBC that I need to take out a subscription.

As you clearly think otherwise can you explain why we need a "State Broadcaster" and in what way the BBC fulfils that "State Broadcasting" role? Because from what I can see of the BBC schedules they seem to divert the bulk of their resources into mainstream "me to" blockbusters that the commercial channels would love to have (e.g. Channel 4 buying Bake-Off, Amazon snapping-up the Top Gear Team). They seem to be focusing on getting viewer ratings more than what people often quote is the idea that they make quality programs that would not otherwise be made for commercial reasons - maybe if they focused on that role I'd be happier about a compulsory subscription!

Ian

You don't get the point do you. You only pay for the BBC subscription by a choice your part. It is voluntary not compulsory.
I don't use it so why should I pay for it - there are lots of people who use private education so why should they pay for the state system, lots of people who use private health care so why should they pay for the state system. Most people who buy, for example, private education will be paying more for the state system they don't use than most folk who do use it. It's also impossible for them to avoid paying for it unless they fiddle their taxes.

[Psamathe]

....
You don't get the point do you. You only pay for the BBC subscription by a choice your part. It is voluntary not compulsory.
I don't use it so why should I pay for it - there are lots of people who use private education so why should they pay for the state system, lots of people who use private health care so why should they pay for the state system. Most people who buy, for example, private education will be paying more for the state system they don't use than most folk who do use it. It's also impossible for them to avoid paying for it unless they fiddle their taxes.

Things like paying for education (I have no children but don't raise objections to my taxes paying for education services) to of benefit to society. I don't think that "Strictly" and "Top Gear" could be presented as being "of benefit to society".

And if entertainment is to be considered good use of tax money then why shouldn't the government force everybody to contribute to my sailing boats?

It is not as simple as objecting to paying for things I don't use - everybody does that all the time and it is justified. It is where what you are being forced to pay for is of no "benefit" and is just subsidising the entertainment of others. I make the same argument about e.g. public subsidy going to help Opera and similar. There do get to be greyer areas but I think the BBC is not one of them as there are alternatives (TV content providers).

Ian

[kwackers]

I don't think that "Strictly" and "Top Gear" could be presented as being "of benefit to society".

They reduce(d) the cost of a license, bring in foreign cash and thus are a benefit to society.

Plenty of other stuff on the beeb, science programs etc. Some interesting history stuff, I was watching the series about Henry the VIII's wives - told from the wive perspective. Fascinating stuff - some woman (Lucy somebody or other) has started another about history itself and how it's twisted and manipulated.

I'd like some stuff on clockmaking - and perhaps a version of 'Sewing Bee' but about engineering... Can't have everything though.

Entertainment is a strange thing, I'm not convinced that saying it has no value to society is entirely true...

[Psamathe]

I don't think that "Strictly" and "Top Gear" could be presented as being "of benefit to society".

They reduce(d) the cost of a license, bring in foreign cash and thus are a benefit to society.

Plenty of other stuff on the beeb, science programs etc. Some interesting history stuff, I was watching the series about Henry the VIII's wives - told from the wive perspective. Fascinating stuff - some woman (Lucy somebody or other) has started another about history itself and how it's twisted and manipulated.

I'd like some stuff on clockmaking - and perhaps a version of 'Sewing Bee' but about engineering... Can't have everything though.

Entertainment is a strange thing, I'm not convinced that saying it has no value to society is entirely true... ;)

So there are programs you enjoy. Great. So why should I subsidise programs you enjoy watching ?

I do look through the schedules and BBC are very lazy about giving the "1st broadcast on ..." info and a lot of the documentaries I see in the schedules for e.g. BBC4 are repeats of often very old Horizons (and very out of date for the one or two I've seen when with others (i.e. not my choice to watch and not at my home)).

Ian

[kwackers]

So there are programs you enjoy. Great. So why should I subsidise programs you enjoy watching ?

Because they're educational? Who knows, and frankly who cares...
If the beeb stops the decline into the mess that is US tv imo that's more than worthwhile. Personally I think radio 4 is worth the money alone.
If it can make cash doing a handful of high quality programs, selling them abroad and filling it's empty space with repeats and cheap tat then I'm good with that too.

As I said, I'm far from convinced that entertainment isn't a public service otherwise why bother with libraries, community sports centres and swimming pools. Why pay for cycle paths, parks and all the subsidies we pay to a plethora of things from wildlife sanctuaries, to areas of exceptional beauty etc etc
If it's all entertainment then why bother? Folk who want it can pay for it surely?

[Psamathe]

So there are programs you enjoy. Great. So why should I subsidise programs you enjoy watching ?

Because they're educational? Who knows, and frankly who cares...
If the beeb stops the decline into the mess that is US tv imo that's more than worthwhile. Personally I think radio 4 is worth the money alone.
If it can make cash doing a handful of high quality programs, selling them abroad and filling it's empty space with repeats and cheap tat then I'm good with that too.

As I said, I'm far from convinced that entertainment isn't a public service otherwise why bother with libraries, community sports centres and swimming pools. Why pay for cycle paths, parks and all the subsidies we pay to a plethora of things from wildlife sanctuaries, to areas of exceptional beauty etc etc
If it's all entertainment then why bother? Folk who want it can pay for it surely?

I suspect that a lot of those other things you listed would not exist without government (public) help. But clearly TV does exist without public subsidy (we are already there and already have it). In fact many think that TV would do better without a BBC as they would not have to compete against an organisation not under such commercial pressures.

Ian

[al_yrpal]

I suspect some folk here have never watched US TV, the clue is that Sky etc is almost as awful. So much brainless twaddle interrupted by too many equally brainless ads that interrupt the flow of programmes. Unfortunately the Beeb have been transmitting more and more of this stuff in the mistaken belief they need to compete.

Al

[kwackers]

I suspect that a lot of those other things you listed would not exist without government (public) help. But clearly TV does exist without public subsidy (we are already there and already have it). In fact many think that TV would do better without a BBC as they would not have to compete against an organisation not under such commercial pressures.

My heart breaks to think that Sky is being held back by the beeb... I can't begin to imagine how it would fare without it.
Oh wait. I've seen the future and it is American...

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Adverts are to me the devils undergarments. Designed to separate folk from their money for stuff they don't need or want. In our society simply having less of them is a social benefit.
In this case we can change "do better" for "have more adverts".

As for the others, no they'd do fine without subsidies.
Perhaps not libraries, but then again there's a converted phone box in a village near me that is a 'library'.
Private gyms and swimming pools do quite well without us providing them - and often they're not just better but much better!
The National Trust does a fine job of looking after stuff - although I do have NT membership and have for years despite never having used it in anger, obviously I'm subsidising those who get too much in the way of free entertainment from theirs but such is life. I'm happy to pay for it because I think it provides social benefit, in that respect I'm happy to pay for the beeb too even though I probably struggle to watch an hour of it a week.
Cycle paths - well, cyclists can use the roads. Nothing like unwinding on a weekend than a nice ride down a busy road, waving cheerfully to passing motorists.

[reohn2]

So there are programs you enjoy. Great. So why should I subsidise programs you enjoy watching ?

Because they're educational? Who knows, and frankly who cares...
If the beeb stops the decline into the mess that is US tv imo that's more than worthwhile. Personally I think radio 4 is worth the money alone.
If it can make cash doing a handful of high quality programs, selling them abroad and filling it's empty space with repeats and cheap tat then I'm good with that too.

As I said, I'm far from convinced that entertainment isn't a public service otherwise why bother with libraries, community sports centres and swimming pools. Why pay for cycle paths, parks and all the subsidies we pay to a plethora of things from wildlife sanctuaries, to areas of exceptional beauty etc etc
If it's all entertainment then why bother? Folk who want it can pay for it surely?

I agree BBC radio alone is great,and there's all the BBC regional radio stations,not to mention local news programs after the national news
TBH the shipping forecast alone is worth it.
Oh and Scottish Football results,to hear the words Hamilton Academicals,is enough to make a man feel faint with excitement,not to mention Forfar 4,Fife 5,I've waited all my life to hear that said in a BBC Oxbridge voice

The BBC is an institution I'm glad to be lock up in

PS,where would we be without the Woodentops,Andy Pandy and Trumpton,sorry should I not have mentioned that?