He has a point!

[kwackers]

Agree, TC.

If we do away with the telly soon, we may replace it with an iMac. Large screen, and connect it to a sound system. We could then have digital radio (and Listen Again) via internet, watch DVDs, watch BBC iPlayer, and any other stuff out there. We have a laptop each, and all this could be done with them, but it's a palarva to connect it all up, so don't bother very often.

"There's nothing on the telly" for us. The telly yet again never got plugged in last evening, and I can't see it getting plugged in again unless we want to watch one of our few DVDs.

The BBC licence is dead in the water IMHO.

Listen again, BBC iPlayer... These exist to hear/watch content that is produced using cash from the license fee.
The cost of distribution is a relatively small part - most of the cost is in the production of content.

The cost of 'celebs' isn't the fault of the BBC, in this country the costs are tiny compared to the states - which doesn't have an equivalent. It is outrageous how much they get paid (and footballers) but that's another issue.

The problem with saying "I don't use it why should I pay" is that it can be applied to any public service.

I don't use parks - should I pay for them?
I have private health care - should I contribute to public health care costs?
Should car drivers pay for bike lanes?
Bike riders pay for roads?

As I said the BBC is a small cost and I think it's benefits are positive. If it just became another commercial channel I think we would become just a little less British...

However times change, whether the licence fee can survive the changes which are happening in our 'easy serve', 'on demand' media world - who knows. When people are willing to watch badly done tat, compressed beyond recognition on a computer screen - I don't think anyone can call it.

[Mick F]

When people are willing to watch badly done tat,

We're watching that now on Live TV! The BBC stuff is a shadow of it's former self. The BBC is the best of the bunch too!

Don't get me wrong, Kwackers, I agree with all you say, but the idea of having a licence to pay for the BBC is old fashioned and totally outdated. They will have to do something else come the next time they're up for a review. BBC only recently got the go-ahead for another 10(?) years.

I remember the days when you needed a hose-pipe licence, a car radio licence, a dog licence, even a radio licence! The TV licence is the last one to hang on. It will go - the sooner the better IMHO.

I utterly agree with having a state-funded Broadcasting Facility. I also agree with schools, rubbish collection, street lights, police, NHS et al. But I don't need a licence for these things - I pay my taxes for the common good.

A penny or two on income tax would pay for the BBC. Is that a better idea?
Maybe not, it's good to have an Independent BBC - but some would say it isn't independent at all, being nothing more than a mouthpiece for the State/Government.

A thorny subject. It still won't make me turn the telly on.

[dan_b]

When I moved to this flat, the previous tenant had left a TV and digibox behind, but the shared aerial for the block is not up to the task and I decided after trying it that it wasn't worth the hassle. So I removed the aerial connection and detuned the channels (this is said to be sufficient to demonstrate it's not used for receiving live broadcast TV) and plugged it into the computer to watch DVDs and youtube

To be honest, if the BBC could reliably deliver watchable TV content to my flat[*], and bill for it without treating non-subscribers like criminals, I would most probably get one. My objection to participating in the current £120/year deal is rooted as much in the heavy-handed Capita collection techniques as in the actual product on offer. I wouldn't buy gas or electricity or internet access from a company which routinely sent threatening letters to people not on their books, either. What does it even achieve? It destroys their goodwill, and anybody with access to the internet can easily see they're all bark and very rarely bite.

[*] iplayer looks promising, but for boring technical reasons I won't go into doesn't quite do the job for me just yet.

[kwackers]

My objection to participating in the current £120/year deal is rooted as much in the heavy-handed Capita collection techniques as in the actual product on offer. I wouldn't buy gas or electricity or internet access from a company which routinely sent threatening letters to people not on their books, either. What does it even achieve? It destroys their goodwill, and anybody with access to the internet can easily see they're all bark and very rarely bite.

I think that one of the reasons they do make so much noise is because growing numbers of people are downloading all they want to watch for free and don't feel the need to pay for a license.

The industry I work in is primarily populated by youngsters, in general they download whatever they want to listen to or watch without a second thought.
With such a forward thinking group on the way up I wonder what the answer is? Perhaps it's just that as the amount of cash available for new stuff dries up we'll simply watch the quality drop and accept it...

Perhaps youtube IS the future of entertainment...

[dan_b]

True, but I don't think it's because they're skinflints just so much as because there's simply no need to pay. I speculate that the same target market are happily paying for content when it's delivered over mobile phone (ringtones, video clips, etc etc) and the charging mechanisms exist -and indeed, they're paying the ISP fees necessary to access all the free stuff. But when usenet and bittorrent have a wider selection and are more convenient to use than the legal download sites, is it any surprise people choose the path odf least resistance?

[Mick F]

Perhaps it's just that as the amount of cash available for new stuff dries up we'll simply watch the quality drop and accept it...

It is drying up and the quality is dropping. I don't think the public would stand for a licence fee hike-up, even that that's what's needed.

A penny on Income Tax.

[dan_b]

Youtube is an interesting case, because it has actually negotiated an arrangement with the PRS/MCPS such that artists whose music is downloaded on music get royalties paid. Presumably this is funded from ad revenue.

I'm not suggesting this is a perfect solution (if it's like most things the artist royalties collection bodies get involved in, I suspect it's rewarding the famous artists and fleecing the minor ones) but compared to most of the internet's nod-and-a-wink attitude to copyright infringement (ISPs practically collude in encouraging lawbreaking - how many of their customers really download 40 GB a month without stepping on any intellectual property toes?) it's an interesting one. Sorry, we're drifting a bit from TV licenses here ...