The TV License

[kyser_soze]

Pay via income tax and you end up with a situation as in Australia where the central gov drops the tax take year on year and you end up with a very, very poor service.

As for representation and 'equalrights'...what do you want, 7.5% of all programming hours given over to BME programming each week? Taking the national stations only, there are a total of 1848 hours per week (24x7x12 (4 TV, 8 radio inc 1xtra); to be 'representative' based on population, 139 hours a week across ALL the BBC national channels would be 'representative', or to split by channel, 11.55 hours per week. This would then need to be divided AGAIN by specific population splits within the BME demographic to ensure no one was being favoured - and I really can't be arsed with doing that. But you'd probably end up with a couple a hours per week per ethnic group in the UK.

If you're talking about representation at mangement and commissioning level...well, you're closer to a point there, but it still remains the case that there aren't many of those jobs, and then they will always be within a specific discipline, rather than a generic commissioning or management job that crosses factual, light entertainment etc.

 

[_angel_]

Fifteen years ago I came across a guy in Lancashire who hadn't got a television. The licensing authorities had searched his house twice and every year the letters demanding he pay came through the box.
He changed the name of his house to CtrlAlt Delete. The authorities (for reasons of their own) declined to include this on their correspondance. He returned their letters unopened as being delivered to an incorrect address.
Meself, I think you get better pictures on the radio.

My b/f doesn't have a telly at his flat and is being pursued by the fangs of doom (TV licensing people) No, they just will not believe anyone doesn't have a tv.

Incidentally how can TV license detectors be so relentless unlike other areas (car tax, people driving without a license etc) How come the TV bods seem funded to pursue people to the ends of the earth but not other, more serious stuff?

 

[subversplat]

My b/f doesn't have a telly at his flat and is being pursued by the fangs of doom (TV licensing people) No, they just will not believe anyone doesn't have a tv.

Incidentally how can TV license detectors be so relentless unlike other areas (car tax, people driving without a license etc) How come the TV bods seem funded to pursue people to the ends of the earth but not other, more serious stuff?

Car tax is automatic and relentless as fuck. Driving without a licence is pretty much unenforcable without being able to see who's in a car at the time it's moving TV Licencing on the other hand do a lot of bluster and bullshit, but generally give up after a bit of a fight.

 

[winger247]

The TV license was the BBC's only means of support in the past but today it has plenty of commercial outlets. We paid them to make programs for our entertainment and we watched them and the repeats on the BBC. Now they take the license make the programs, we watch them then they very quickly flog them as DVDs and to commercial channels. It's also irks me to see the BBC pay the media types, the newsreader, the on the spot reporter, the news analyst, the celebrity opinion's, just read the fecking news please we can make our own minds up thank you. In the digital future just make the BBC an encrypted paid for package and if we want it we will pay for it. It's not now the only player in the game and should be prepared to be competitive like all other UK services that had a monopoly, e.g Electricity, Gas and Transport.

 

[Fledgling]

I think the BBC should be privatised and the licence fee scrapped. I think the model was justified to some extent in the past with a limited range of broadcast media. However with today's proliferation of internet sites offering news and plenty of other material I'm not sure what purpose the BBC serves.

There appears to be a considerable amount of time taken up advertising new programmes (often on channels not everyone can receive) or initiatives such as this run a mile thing. These slots could be used by advertisers. The BBC could operate as a commercial company, it has plenty of talented people and a large infrastructure and a large existing audience.

Privatising would possibly remove the constant problem of bias accusations that recur (well it wouldn't stop this entirely but private media can be as biased as they like and it doesn't matter. We are constantly subjected to bias, I don't think the BBC is a haven of objectivity). I think though the main argument for scrapping the current model is the alternatives people use. At present people have tp ay for a licence fee even i they aren't using the BBC at all (e.g. if you only watch ITV). When I look at how many repeats fill the schedules I wonder what the fee goes towards. With private channels you can choose to pay or not.

However I do think technology will probably spell the end for the BBC in currrent form. There's so much you could do, put all programmes on the internet and pay per programme or pay by advertising. Privatising might allow the company to get rid of inefficient parts of its infrastructure too.


However if they got rid of that hilarious "have your say" section on the website for any reason I'd be upset, very amusing.