BBC plans to increase license fee

[cheekyspanky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4328514.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4330272.stm

"If the government accepts the BBC's proposal, the fee would rise by £3.14 per year until 2013, not including inflation. The current fee is £126.50."

Is it a given that the government will accept the changes? I can't say I've paid attention before - have they ever had to amend areas before the plans get approved?

"On average, a repeat on BBC One or BBC Two costs £13,000 an hour - compared with £534,000 to make an hour of original drama."
:eek:

Suddenly the repeats all make sense!


"Portable devices such as mobile phones will have access to more material, such as news, and the BBC wants viewers to create "personalised" versions of BBC audio and news.

"So if, for example, if you are interested in world music or Baroque music, on the web we can offer you at a very marginal cost a personalised radio station ."

And when will we get HDTV...

"Mr Thompson pledged to deliver free-to-air HDTV on all BBC digital platforms "as soon as practical", which is expected to be by about 2010."

[combatcolin]

Now thats a big price difference.

I don't see why repeats get such a bad name, good programming should be given another chance to find more viewers.

Or, to put it another way - if it wasn't for repeats i would never been able to watch the Two Ronnies.

HDTV next year please with an affordable (£2-300) set top box.

[raggedjimmi]

i dont mind that, not like i have a TV license or anything but with quality shows like Doctor Who, Casualty and all that stuff on BBC then its all cool. I dont mind paying for good things. especially if it makes David Tennant's hair that little bit more special.

[iGav]

Disgusting... utterly disgusting. Hopefully the Government will tell them where to get off.

They should be doing the exact opposite, e.g. coming up with a plan where they reduce the licence fee over the next 10 years until they become completely self sufficient much like ITV, Channel 4, Five, SKY.

The BBC said research found 81% of the BBC audience believed the licence fee was good value for money and more than 40% would be prepared to pay twice the current licence fee or more.

That's absolute bullsh*t for a start.

[raggedjimmi]

HDTV next year please with an affordable (£2-300) set top box.

if the BBC were flogging HDTV set top boxes next year for £2 id get me a HDTV! ;) :cool:

[edesignuk]

My spidey-powers are detecting that iGAV doesn't like the good ole' beeb much :eek: :p

[jimN]

i don't think that it is much to pay for teh service you get and without adverts too. For the person who compared it to 'self sufficient' sky - i think that you'll find that a sky subscription is a good deal more expensive than the license fee. ITV puts out rubbish (with ads) and channel 4 may actually get money from the beeb to help with the digital conversion. For all the good teh beeb does (and don't forget the radio and their impressive web site) it seems a small price.

[dcv]

It's not *that* much more to pay. People keep forgetting that the BBC is no longer just channels 1 and 2. There have actually been some great shows on BBC3 such as Casanova, some interesting documentaries/films on BBC4 and then there's also the News24, kids channels and many digital radio stations. I guess if you're still watching in analogue then it's a crap deal, but you still have to pay the licence fee regardless of the channels you decide to watch. I don't mind paying for ad-free quality programmes, though to be honest I'm getting a little tired of repeats and copy-cat programming and even the Beeb is guilty of doing this.

Freeview seems to be a little bit behind on the interactive front, so i hope they spend some money improving this service soon. At the moment many of the "press the red button" features only seem to work on the digital satellite, not DTT platform.

[Brize]

Personally, I think the current licence fee represents good value for money, especially given the additional services provided by the BBC.

I'm not keen on the idea of the BBC becoming 'self-sufficient'; I'd rather receive my news coverage from an organisation that isn't beholden to the interests of advertisers.

[BlizzardBomb]

That's absolute bullsh*t for a start.

The survey was probably done on BBC staff ;)

[Blue Velvet]

No TV... no license. :D

[Applespider]

I pay SKY more than twice that a year for nothing like the quality I get from the BBC. I don't watch all that much TV but during Olympic time/Wimbledon etc, the BBC coverage is fantastic.

I'm watching more BBC broadcasts via their website now. That's where I watched the Ronnie Barker tribute since it was aired live via BBC Online. I'd pay the license fee in subscriptions for the BBC News site - I'm sure I get my money's worth from that alone!

[iGav]

My spidey-powers are detecting that iGAV doesn't like the good ole' beeb much :eek: :p

I don't think they're worth £126.50 per year for the priviledge that's for sure, never mind the year on year increase that is going to see the licence fee approach £190 by 2013. :eek:

And you know what really pis*es me off a treat, it's the way they rub it in with their crappy licence advertisements they run, you know the ones... All thanks to the the way the BBC is uniquely funded by YOU, YES YOU the viewer.

For the person who compared it to 'self sufficient' sky - i think that you'll find that a sky subscription is a good deal more expensive than the license fee.

And I think you'll find that you can pick up 200+ channels for free with no monthly subscription from Sky. ;)

But that's not my point. If I want Sky... I have to pay for the privilege, but it's MY decision.

If I want to own a T.V. and watch every single channel other than anything BBC, then I HAVE TO pay £126.50, regardless of whether I watch their programming.

ITV puts out rubbish

And the Beeb doesn't? :eek:

(with ads)

The Beeb's more than adept at running it's own advertisements for it's own products for 3 minutes every hour. ;)

(and don't forget the radio and their impressive web site) it seems a small price.

A small price... but why when others can do it for free? and offer a comparable service in the process?

With the advent of a terrestrial digital signal, and the opportunities that it will provide... there's no excuse for licence fee to exist in 10 years time. None.

As it's in the nations interest, I say put it to a referendum.

[Brize]

If I want to own a T.V. and watch every single channel other than anything BBC, then I HAVE TO pay £126.50, regardless of whether I watch their programming.

This is a serious problem, and something that needs to be addressed going forward.

Another problem is the aggression of the TV Licensing agency. As Blue will probably attest, TV Licensing work on the assumption that you own a television, and will bombard you with threatening literature even once you've told them that you don't watch broadcast television, or that you own a television but only use it to watch pre-recorded material (in which case you're not required to purchase a licence). At the very least, licence evasion should be decriminalised.

[combatcolin]

Whats the alternative, Sky?

Please god no, Simpsons may be good every 2 hours.

[Blue Velvet]

...Another problem is the aggression of the TV Licensing agency. As Blue will probably attest, TV Licensing work on the assumption that you own a television, and will bombard you with threatening literature even once you've told them that you don't watch broadcast television, or that you own a television but only use it to watch pre-recorded material (in which case you're not required to purchase a licence). At the very least, licence evasion should be decriminalised.

I receive a letter about once a month -- they vary in their levels of nastiness. Until recently, they've been addressed to the occupier but the most recent one was addressed to me personally. The net is closing in... :rolleyes:

Their inspectors have got a habit of ringing the bell on Sat or Sun. mornings, but I never let them into the block.

I've never bothered to contact the TV licensing agency at all. There is no legal requirement to do so to inform them that I do not have a TV nor do they have the right to gain entry without a search warrant.

I like the idea that they think they're going to catch me out and make an example of me... one day and when I'm in the mood, I'll let them in just to see the reactions on their faces when they see that there's no TV at all, not even for DVDs.

[Knox]

And I think you'll find that you can pick up 200+ channels for free with no monthly subscription from Sky. ;)

Therein lies one of the main differences between a commercial company and a public broadcaster (whoever it may be). Sky only provide a free satellite service because a certain percentage of the people who sign up for the free service will eventually upgrade to the subscription service. If that percentage drops below a profitable level then Sky will most likely stop the free service.

The Beeb's more than adept at running it's own advertisements for it's own products for 3 minutes every hour. ;)

BBC's 3 minutes per hour or the commercial channels' 3 minutes every 15 minutes. Plus, one of my pet hates - documentaries which, before each ad break tell you what's coming next and then after the ad break summarise what has already been said, thus removing another 5 minutes worth of program over the hour.

A small price... but why when others can do it for free? and offer a comparable service in the process?

They don't do it for free, they do it because it promotes their services. Again, if it's not providing a return they would not continue to provide it.

I wouldn't necessarily be against getting rid of the licence fee, but only as long as it didn't affect the programs and services that the BBC are supplying at the moment and planning to do (iMP and simulcast BBC1/2 in particular)

[iGav]

People keep forgetting that the BBC is no longer just channels 1 and 2.

I keep forgetting... :eek: but that's because the other 2 are crap. :p

But you raise a good point about the extra channels, and the analogue signal.

My mum lives in Coventry, one of the largest cities in the country but her analogue reception is literally unwatchable, yet she's not covered by Freeview either. So the only way she can get a picture is to get Sky (and thankfully she's seen the light cancelled the subscription and gets Sky FreeSat from this month).

Now is it just me, or is something wrong when my mum had to pay twice for the priviledge of getting a decent reception? something that should have been covered by the original £126.50?

What about the people that can barely afford the licence fee? or live in area's that are not covered by Freeview and don't have access to the extra BBC channels? It's wrong that people are expected to pay for services they cannot view. It's ethically and morally wrong.

I also don't subscribe to the opinion that should the BBC become a commercial entity that their programming would suffer, utter nonsense, maybe it'd help rein in their outstanding ability at blowing money on worthless programming though.

[plinden]

Disgusting... utterly disgusting. Hopefully the Government will tell them where to get off.

They should be doing the exact opposite, e.g. coming up with a plan where they reduce the licence fee over the next 10 years until they become completely self sufficient much like ITV, Channel 4, Five, SKY.

Well, that's your opinion.

I would pay the equivalent of £130/yr for two commercial-free TV channels like the BBC here in the US. I pay $54/month currently, for something like 100 channels (digital cable with the movie package), and last week I watched West Wing, Lost and ER (yes, that's 120 minutes of programming and 60 minutes of ads in a week) ... because there was nothing else I want to watch. My daughter also watched 30 minutes of Thomas the Tank Engine on PBS and a couple of Dora the Explorer episodes on Nick Jr.

I could drop back to basic cable, but it's still $35/month for 50 channels I don't watch, and I wouldn't get the movie package or Sci FI channel.

[Thanatoast]

iGAV, I think you should come to the US and be forced to watch broadcast network television for a week. You'll never complain about the BBC again. Between the (non)reality programming, the evening "news", the never-ending commercials for pills, cars and more pills, and the fact that 90% of all programming is total crap, you'll be happy to get back to the beeb.

[iGav]

Therein lies one of the main differences between a commercial company and a public broadcaster (whoever it may be). Sky only provide a free satellite service because a certain percentage of the people who sign up for the free service will eventually upgrade to the subscription service. If that percentage drops below a profitable level then Sky will most likely stop the free service.

Obviously, of course you don't have to go through Sky to recieve the FTA channels, I was merely responding to a statement by JimN. :)

BBC's 3 minutes per hour or the commercial channels' 3 minutes every 15 minutes.

Adverts have never bothered me, so I personally don't have an issue... infact they're many instances where the advert is better than the program. :p

But with the advent of the digital terrestrial signal, there should be more innovative and creative solutions to broadcast advertising.

They don't do it for free, they do it because it promotes their services. Again, if it's not providing a return they would not continue to provide it.

But it costs the viewer/listener/clicker nothing for the privilege. They make their money from advertising, and provide a comparable service to the BBC. The BBC is not head and shoulders above ITV, Channel 4 or Five, and neither is their radio stations.

I wouldn't necessarily be against getting rid of the licence fee, but only as long as it didn't affect the programs and services that the BBC are supplying at the moment and planning to do (iMP and simulcast BBC1/2 in particular)

Personally, what I'd like to see is the option for people who want to receive the BBC and its assorted products to be able to make that choice, pay a 'subscription' cost and receive it.

But to have to pay £126.50 even if you have no intention or are unable to watch the BBC, is unfair.

[jimN]

Sorry to hear about your gran iGav, i guess there's a reason they talk about people being sent to coventry, didn't realise that it was because of their poor tv reception. There will be a satellite service to provide freeview before the digital changeover.

Am pleased to hear that you have access to 200 channels, i wonder how many you actually watch. BBC3 and BBC4 are far from rubbish and are now home to some of the beeb's best output.

As for how officious the tv licensing authority are, i can't say that i blame them. The vast majority of households have tvs, and most can afford it (that's how many months worth of cigarettes?)

[thequicksilver]

I do not have an issue with the existence of the BBC and the way it is funded per se, however I do have large issues with the way it has evolved. The BBC are using the digital rollout, the website, the expense of BBC 3 and 4, and various new ratio stations as excuses for the above inflation price increase. My issues:

• Who asked the BBC to create the world's biggest website with our money?
• Who asked the BBC to create new channels which already have commercial alternatives?
• Who asked the BBC to make radio stations which don't provide a public service, but merely whore records at the behest of record labels?

• In short, how can they charge the public for changes in retrospect when those that fund the service weren't consulted?

I posted the following on my blog late last year. and though self plagiarising isn't big or clever, it saves re-writing it.

But I'll highlight what, to me, the BBC does that is brilliant, and among the best in the world at:

• A news service as free of bias as is possible.
• In depth sports coverage - and not just football.
• BBC Radios 4 and 5 Live fulfil their remit wonderfully.
• Their documentaries are some of the most respected and well-made in the world.
• BBC Local Radio is a welcome release from the commercial stations which seem intent on playing as much networked content as possible.

The problems with the BBC:

• Too much focus on ratings on BBC 1. It is not in the public interest to outgun ITV, and the BBC is a public service.
• The World Service in however many squillion languages. The BBC is a public service funded by the British taxpayer, and broadcasts in Russian, Somali and Arabic are not in the British public interest.
• Music radio is a commercial venture which serves only the record companies by trying to sell their records, as well as licensing the songs to play. Commercial stations should take at least two of the BBC music stations over to free up the taxpayer's money spent on these.
• Their web services are too big. Is it really in the British public interest to run the biggest website in the world? Equally, as it's paid for by the British taxpayer, more bandwidth-intensive stuff (audio and video) should be charged for by those outside of the UK. Why should the British taxpayer pay for foreigners watching and listening to their content? I'm aware I watched and listened to a lot of BBC content when living in Paris, but I held the same view then - I'd have happily paid a monthly subscription fee to access the BBC's site, especially the news and radio content.

This is the thing - the BBC needs to create more reasons for it to continue to exist. It bothers me that it is a legal requirement for us to pay for the BBC whether or not we use its services. I fail to see why I should fund the BBC Russian service just because I happen to own a television. It's an old fashioned principle which has reached its end.

I would pay for BBCs 1 and 2, and also if necessary for Radio 4 and 5 Live. But the rest? Bloat. I'd live without most of the website (short of news and sport, within the BBC's remit), the music radio stations aren't in the public interest, and on and on and on and Ariston.

A 20th Century corporation trying desperately hard to stay there.

[mpw]

I receive a letter about once a month -- they vary in their levels of nastiness. Until recently, they've been addressed to the occupier but the most recent one was addressed to me personally. The net is closing in... :rolleyes:....There is no legal requirement to do so to inform them that I do not have a TV nor do they have the right to gain entry without a search warrant.
My uncle was hounded in much the same way and they took him to court to slap him with a £2,000 fine. They made the case and the Judge turned to my uncle who was representing himself against advice and asked if he had anything to say in defense or mitigation. My uncle simply stated he did not and never has owned a TV. The Judge asked why he'd never told the TV licensing and he stated truthfully that they had never asked whether he owned a TV only if he had a license. The Judge apologised to him and torn shreds out of their lawyer for wasting time. :D

[iGav]

The survey was probably done on BBC staff ;)

And probably by the ones that have access to the fabled 'Red' button... :eek :p heheh.

iGAV, I think you should come to the US and be forced to watch broadcast network television for a week.

Thing is, I don't watch much TV, the channels I usually watch Channel 4, Adventure One, Discovery Civilisation and Science, National Geographic all have adverts and they don't annoy in the slightest... and IMHO each and everyone of those channels easily match and often exceed the quality of programming that the BBC offers... and usually when the BBC excels it's frequently in partnership with one of the above.

It's rare that I watch anything on the BBC, Top Gear is the only thing that springs to mind (and even then the last series was pretty dire overall) and the occasional docu like last years admittedly excellent 'Voyage To The Planets' (which was in partnership with Discovery Channel, but that is another issue entirely).

So to me, having to pay £126.50 is excessive, for something I hardly use... when I doubt I'd notice a difference in the quality of their programming if they became a commercial channel.

[kiwi-in-uk]

I receive a letter about once a month -- they vary in their levels of nastiness. Until recently, they've been addressed to the occupier but the most recent one was addressed to me personally. The net is closing in... :rolleyes:
I use a TV for DVDs but not for broadcast reception, so I refuse to have a licence. I was being hounded so I wrote a letter sometime last year & haven't heard back from them.

If the licensing authority believes that every household has a TV ergo requires a licence then why don't they draw from consolidated tax revenues and leave everyone alone? Perhaps they could all get jobs as parking inspectors instead.

Another thought. The current law requires a licence for receiving broadcast TV (regardless of medium) but not for recorded TV (DVDs etc). Where does BBC's own timeshifted service fit? They are recorded programmes - not broadcast - and the delivery medium happens to be online, rather than DVD.

[Xtremehkr]

The BBC does a great job compared to what I have available locally. If it helps them become an internationally respected news outlet (to the point where they have subscribers in multiple nationalities) I am all for it. If the BBC had the presence that NPR had here locally (without influences like Tomlinson) I would be all for it.

There are a lack of truly objective news media, the BBC may not be exactly that, but if they were to be the closest to it, I would support them locally. Where they originate from is irrelevant, as long as I get some real news.

[Aaon]

I agree with the other Americans who have posted. I would gladly pay the money for a few channels of (relatively) commercial-free programming, especially if it is of the quality that the beeb can provide. Of course, as an American, my exposure to BBC programming is generally limited to whatever they show on PBS (Are You Being Served, Keeping Up Appearances, classic Doctor Who, BBC World News, and a few dramas packaged in the Masterpiece Theatre series), but almost allt he programs I see are of high quality, entertaining, and often quite thought provoking. And the idea of seeing a show that isn't interrupted every 7 minutes for adverts is extremely appealing.

The BBC does a great job compared to what I have available locally. If it helps them become an internationally respected news outlet (to the point where they have subscribers in multiple nationalities) I am all for it. If the BBC had the presence that NPR had here locally (without influences like Tomlinson) I would be all for it.

There are a lack of truly objective news media, the BBC may not be exactly that, but if they were to be the closest to it, I would support them locally. Where they originate from is irrelevant, as long as I get some real news.

Hear Hear, Xtremehkr! NPR is a treasure in the US. Between the news and commentary provided by NPR during the day, and my public radio station's brodcast of BBC World News at night, I have a true alternative to the Fox News/CNN/network nonsense that often passes for hard news in the United States.

[Nermal]

Therein lies one of the main differences between a commercial company and a public broadcaster (whoever it may be). Sky only provide a free satellite service because a certain percentage of the people who sign up for the free service will eventually upgrade to the subscription service.

Interesting. Over here, Sky don't provide a free service at all - even channels which are available free via VHF/UHF are encrypted on Sky's service and require payment of a monthly fee.

I don't see why the BBC licence can't work like the old analogue Sky system - supply everyone with a set-top box, and allow them to watch BBC if they've paid the fee.

[dobbin]

Another thought. The current law requires a licence for receiving broadcast TV (regardless of medium) but not for recorded TV (DVDs etc). Where does BBC's own timeshifted service fit? They are recorded programmes - not broadcast - and the delivery medium happens to be online, rather than DVD.

I'm sure the law will soon catch up with the technology and watching this content will require a license.

The first Mac I ever bought for myself was a Performa 6200 CD-TV in 1995. This had a built in TV-tuner which at the time was quite unusual. The manual from Apple stated that they didn't know if a TV license was required and a call to the licensing bods revealed they didn't know either! After a couple of years, once TV Tuner cards became more common, the rules were tightened up to explicitly state that a license is required for a computer capable of receiving television. I'm sure the same will happen (if it hasn't already) for content broadcast via broadband, either real-time or time delayed.

[dobbin]

Another interesting point is that the BBC do restrict access to certain radio or TV streams to people outside the UK. I believe this is currently due to what they have the rights to broadcast - e.g. outside of the UK you can't listen to Radio FiveLive's coverage of the Olympics as Auntie only bought the rights to broadcast this in the UK. Its the same for some football and rugby coverage.

I think anyone outside the UK should be made to pay a small fee to listen to or watch any online BBC content. Anyone who can prove they have a TV license could be given an exception (eg Brits on holiday, travelling abroad) as well as anyone else where its in the UK public interest (eg broadcasting to people abroad that will promote Britain)

[kiwi-in-uk]

... After a couple of years, once TV Tuner cards became more common, the rules were tightened up to explicitly state that a license is required for a computer capable of receiving television. I'm sure the same will happen (if it hasn't already) for content broadcast via broadband, either real-time or time delayed.
Good points.
But the law states that a licence is not required for the device if it is not used for receiving broadcast transmissions. I suppose it hinges around the definition of broadcast - does it include individual view on request (almost identical to playing a DVD, which is explicitly excluded under the current definition)?

Edit: I had a look at the Act and the Regulations :eek:
They specifically exclude selection per view from a library (there are three conditions - here (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--k.htm#361) (Section 361, paras 2 to 5) if you are interested.

[mpw]

Another interesting point is that the BBC do restrict access to certain radio or TV streams to people outside the UK....

It'll be interesting to see what they do for me when they turn the analogue transmissions off in a couple of years.

As Jersey is so close to France ~10miles they can’t transmit a terrestrial digital signal due to interference. This’ll leave a SKY broadcast as our only option to receive any BBC TV content. The same is true for digital radio but I don’t know if they have a date to quit FM yet?

[hvfsl]

It's rare that I watch anything on the BBC, Top Gear is the only thing that springs to mind (and even then the last series was pretty dire overall) and the occasional docu like last years admittedly excellent 'Voyage To The Planets' (which was in partnership with Discovery Channel, but that is another issue entirely).


There were 1 or 2 bad episodes last series, but most of them were great. I especially liked the race where clackson was in the Maclaren and that one where they drive the van around the Nurburg Ring. :cool:

But as for the lisence fee, they only make about 4 series that I like to watch (Top Gear, Spooks, Hustle and Have I Got News for you). And even those only last about 8 episodes.

So if the BBC could make the series longer and maybe bring back classics like Red Dwarf, I wouldn't mind paying the extra.

[babyjenniferLB]

Once again i will post why must i pay for channels i do not watch, i watch sky1 on occasion and sometimes the non sci fi channel, variant of channel 4, or a history/discovery channel.
Why must i pay for English soaps, English and Welsh news, and other such nonsense that i have no interest in but i am forced to pay twice for the channels i actually want to watch.
And to our American friends it is all well and good saying you would pay to have channels without adverts but it does help if these programs are of interest and relevance to yourself.
Would you be happy being forced to pay $260 a year for episodes of some Canadian soap about Canadians life's or for Canadian news and politics.

[yojitani]

I used to begrudge paying a license fee, but I'm beginning to think it's worth every penny. Living in the US, the ads (every ten bloody minutes!) drive me mad and the TV content is even more maddening. What I would like to see the BBC do is to allow people from outside the country to pay a fee to get streaming, live content from them.

@babyjenniferLB: Are you saying you don't watch anything on the BBC? Or are you complaining about the lack of regional content? I can't imagine you get that on Sky.

[babyjenniferLB]

I used to begrudge paying a license fee, but I'm beginning to think it's worth every penny. Living in the US, the ads (every ten bloody minutes!) drive me mad and the TV content is even more maddening. What I would like to see the BBC do is to allow people from outside the country to pay a fee to get streaming, live content from them.

@babyjenniferLB: Are you saying you don't watch anything on the BBC? Or are you complaining about the lack of regional content? I can't imagine you get that on Sky.

I do not watch anything on the BBC due to lack of regional programming and programming that is of interest to me such as sci fi. Sky has world news which is far more appropriate to me than hearing if some person has died in England or they have won some sporting event.

[raggedjimmi]

Heh, well all I watch is BBC1 and 2. We have Sky but it's mostly cack and the image (through SCART) is fugly so I avoid that when I can.
But yea like I said 4 years ago I don't mind paying. It's a good quality service (if you disregard Eastenders and the priority to sport).

[Jaffa Cake]

Sky has world news which is far more appropriate to me than hearing if some person has died in London...Fixed that for you.

If you think Scotland receives scant coverage, try living in a part of England well away from the south-east. Quite why our local news bulletin informed us of the latest developments of the London Mayoral Elections a few years back still escapes me.

[babyjenniferLB]

Fixed that for you.

If you think Scotland receives scant coverage, try living in a part of England well away from the south-east. Quite why our local news bulletin informed us of the latest developments of the London Mayoral Elections a few years back still escapes me.

At least that is kinda more relevant as it is in your country.

[Jaffa Cake]

At least that is kinda more relevant as it is in your country.In actual fact, it really has no relevance at all to our exciting t'Northern lives.

Hopefully you can receive BBC Alba, so there might at least be some programming that's relevant to you.

[babyjenniferLB]

Hopefully you can receive BBC Alba, so there might at least be some programming that's relevant to you.

Nahh at this stage i will not watch any BBC channel in protest, and it is fast getting to the point were i will be able to go fully onto appletv only. Yet the BBC are trying to push though that if you can access the internet and therefor the iplayer you will need a tv licence just for the privilege of having internet access instead of perhaps making it that you have to perhaps log into the iplayer with your licence number.

[Kebabselector]

I would feel sad if I lived in a country only served by (sh)ITV and Sky. The majority of BBC programs aren't centred around the SouthEast. Maybe the National news is biased, but that's what the regional news is for. As for Eastenders, it's a soap I wouldn't care if it was based in my city of Birmingham. I'd still avoid it.

Yet the BBC are trying to push though that if you can access the internet and therefor the iplayer you will need a tv licence just for the privilege of having internet access instead of perhaps making it that you have to perhaps log into the iplayer with your licence number.

Wrong, the TV licence is only required to watch iPlayer broadcasts as they are broadcast (or near) on the TV.

Anyway, when you get independence from the UK you can scrap BBC Scotland/Licence fee.

[AppleMatt]

I receive a letter about once a month -- they vary in their levels of nastiness. Until recently, they've been addressed to the occupier but the most recent one was addressed to me personally. The net is closing in... :rolleyes:

Their inspectors have got a habit of ringing the bell on Sat or Sun. mornings, but I never let them into the block.

I've never bothered to contact the TV licensing agency at all. There is no legal requirement to do so to inform them that I do not have a TV nor do they have the right to gain entry without a search warrant.

I like the idea that they think they're going to catch me out and make an example of me... one day and when I'm in the mood, I'll let them in just to see the reactions on their faces when they see that there's no TV at all, not even for DVDs.

I do this to! I own a flat that's been without a TV for three years. Soon after I bought it I received a threatening letter so I wrote and explained there was no TV, which they were free to check, but that if there had of been one in there I'd have paid a lot quicker without being threatened with prosecution straight of the bat.

Anyhoo, three years on and I'm still getting regular notices that I've been passed to their 'enforcement division', will be subject to a £xxxx fine yada yada. No-one has visited tho :(.

If I'm bored I might send a letter back enclosing copies of the original two letters and saying that I'm going to claim against them for unlawful harassment, just to see what happens really. I'd like the letters to stop, if they do this to everyone seems like an awful waste of money and resources.

AppleMatt

[Eraserhead]

I love the BBC, especially the news. Today I learnt that storm drains have the ability to prevent large river floods here in Oxford :rolleyes:.

[babyjenniferLB]

Wrong, the TV licence is only required to watch iPlayer broadcasts as they are broadcast (or near) on the TV.

My point is that there is no opt out of the ability to use this service, essentially they can claim i am watching it when i have never visited the site and whack me with a TV licence bill.
So even for having internet access one must pay the BBC tax for a service unused and unwanted.

[weckart]

Once again i will post why must i pay for channels i do not watch, i watch sky1 on occasion and sometimes the non sci fi channel, variant of channel 4, or a history/discovery channel.
Why must i pay for English soaps, English and Welsh news, and other such nonsense that i have no interest in but i am forced to pay twice for the channels i actually want to watch.


That is how I feel about having to pay income tax to fund schools, hospitals and the army, none of whose services I use.

Why should I pay just so that those services can exist independent of their users ability to pay for them?

I, too, dream of a world where tv programming is dependent upon securing the high costs from the few subscribers who can afford several hundred pounds a year for the privilege of watching content decided upon by the whims of advertisers.

[babyjenniferLB]

That is how I feel about having to pay income tax to fund schools, hospitals and the army, none of whose services I use.

Why should I pay just so that those services can exist independent of their users ability to pay for them?

I, too, dream of a world where tv programming is dependent upon securing the high costs from the few subscribers who can afford several hundred pounds a year for the privilege of watching content decided upon by the whims of advertisers.

You are way of the beat here comparing schools and hospitals that are essential community services with subsidised television programs for the English market.

Making entertainment on the same priority of spending as schools and hospitals, services that do perform a real function.

[instaxgirl]

I do not watch anything on the BBC due to lack of regional programming and programming that is of interest to me such as sci fi. Sky has world news which is far more appropriate to me than hearing if some person has died in England or they have won some sporting event.

Nahh at this stage i will not watch any BBC channel in protest, and it is fast getting to the point were i will be able to go fully onto appletv only

You complain that you don't watch BBC Scotland "in protest", so you're missing out on your regional programming aren't you?

I know I'm not going to win this and I do see your point but all I thought when I read your first post was "BBC Scotland?"

I do this to! I own a flat that's been without a TV for three years. Soon after I bought it I received a threatening letter so I wrote and explained there was no TV, which they were free to check, etc etc etc

Got the same letter when I lived in student halls. EVERYONE did. Most people couldn't get through to the number. I did:

Me: I've got this letter despite not having a tv. Also it says this is the 2nd warning, but I never received a first.

TVLicense moron: You don't have a tv?

Me: No, what I do have is a letter threatening that someone is going to come round and barge into my room.

TVLicense moron: Ok then. We'll send someone round to check you don't have a tv then we'll take your name off the list.

Me: What ON EARTH was the point of this phonecall which your letter instructed me to make?!

No one came round. They sent a new letter to everyone about once every 6 weeks, even the people WITH TV licenses. In addition my halls only had about 40 people in it, no one had an unlicensed TV. Only about 2 people even had a TV to start with . . .

The letters got extremely nasty towards the end (it was quite surprising actually, how threatening they were), no one ever turned up to check us out though.

[SactoGuy18]

At least you can pay in monthly installments of (currently) £11.63 per month, not bad considering going out for a sit-down restaurant meal here in the USA nowadays can cost easily that much per person for ONE meal at current exchange rates between the US dollar and British pound--and we're not talking a fancy restaurant, either!

[Marble]

You are way of the beat here comparing schools and hospitals that are essential community services with subsidised television programs for the English market.

Making entertainment on the same priority of spending as schools and hospitals, services that do perform a real function.

Not so far off beat. It's a cultural service, one dedicated to preserving the art and cultural diversity of the British nations and of the UK as a whole. This is really important, and part of what gives the British such a strong international image. No where else in the English speaking world is there such a service, respected for its news and drama, independent, and generally speaking fairly transparent and responsible.

There is crap on the air, and the Beeb do make commissioning mistakes, but the fact that it's willing to take risks on these is a good sign. Look at British drama outside of the BBC right now. It will probably take decades for ITV to compete in quality original content again after melting down in a fit of reality and game show programming. C4 is laying almost as low. In this economy only the BBC can continue to commission projects based on their perceived cultural value. Even the Beeb's most quotidian programming (like Eastenders) can afford to be less cynical than those created under profit-minded executives.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/16/tv-writers-support-bbc-drama

God knows there are problems, but the BBC is really special, Brits. You don't know what you have over here.

EDIT: and the license fee is what makes it possible.

[babyjenniferLB]

Not so far off beat. It's a cultural service, one dedicated to preserving the art and cultural diversity of the British nations and of the UK as a whole. This is really important, and part of what gives the British such a strong international image. No where else in the English speaking world is there such a service, respected for its news and drama, independent, and generally speaking fairly transparent and responsible.

There is crap on the air, and the Beeb do make commissioning mistakes, but the fact that it's willing to take risks on these is a good sign. Look at British drama outside of the BBC right now. It will probably take decades for ITV to compete in quality original content again after melting down in a fit of reality and game show programming. C4 is laying almost as low. In this economy only the BBC can continue to commission projects based on their perceived cultural value. Even the Beeb's most quotidian programming (like Eastenders) can afford to be less cynical than those created under profit-minded executives.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/16/tv-writers-support-bbc-drama

God knows there are problems, but the BBC is really special, Brits. You don't know what you have over here.

EDIT: and the license fee is what makes it possible.

All well and good but it leaves me in the same situation where i have to pay for channels i do not watch, so i ether have to pay the BBC tax or not watch any television programs at all.
And right now i think i am better served with DVD's since if i want the Sci Fi channel, Sky News, Cartoon channels, Sky1, and channel 4 i would not only have to pay for a package from sky/virgin but also have to pay extra into funding a organisation i can not find reason to support especially when we see the excellent job the Sci Fi channel did in recreating Battlestar Galatica to the nonsense the BBC is producing with Doctor Who.

[Marble]

All well and good but it leaves me in the same situation where i have to pay for channels i do not watch, so i ether have to pay the BBC tax or not watch any television programs at all.
And right now i think i am better served with DVD's since if i want the Sci Fi channel, Sky News, Cartoon channels, Sky1, and channel 4 i would not only have to pay for a package from sky/virgin but also have to pay extra into funding a organisation i can not find reason to support especially when we see the excellent job the Sci Fi channel did in recreating Battlestar Galatica to the nonsense the BBC is producing with Doctor Who.

Like yourself, I have little time for Doctor Who, but I don't have a problem paying for it because it supports the arts and culture of the UK. The BBC does try to represent a wide range of tastes and regions (they really could do better about regional drama - but I think they are perhaps wising up to the dangers of centralisation now that there is no more Head of Fiction). They've got a number of TV and radio channels and they try new stuff all the time. In fact, Scotland's Still Game is one of the BBC's regional success stories. They even run one of the world's only unsolicited submission sites for original writing so that people who feel underrepresented can get involved.

The blind license fee is integral to keeping the BBC a public service, with a mandate to entertain and enlighten the UK, and not just a subscriber-hungry monster like Sky. Perhaps the license fee should really be part of our taxes because, like you say, that's pretty much what it is.

[weckart]

You are way of the beat here comparing schools and hospitals that are essential community services with subsidised television programs for the English market.

Making entertainment on the same priority of spending as schools and hospitals, services that do perform a real function.

Please do explain exactly how BBC Scotland, BBC Alba, BBC Ulster and BBC Cymru serve the "English" market.

The BBC has a broad remit not limited to entertainment - or how would you categorise the Open University, for example? The BBC clearly serves a community function, not beholden to advertisers or small focus groups. It has to cater for all sections of society. I would not have called any of the BBC television programmes I had to watch at school as entertainment.

In Dr Who, you have got scifi headed by a Scottish protagonist, so even your stringent requirements are met with the most popular programme it broadcasts.

I was forced to take and pay for a standard cable TV package when I subcribed to a broadband service. Over and above what I got with terrestial tv was limited to Sky 1, which comprised of Simpsons repeats, American Pro wrestling and Star Trek. That was it. Nothing worth watching.

You might feel that your narrow viewing interests are not covered enough by the BBC but life outside state funded television is much worse.

[raggedjimmi]

In Dr Who, you have got scifi headed by a Scottish protagonist, so even your stringent requirements are met with the most popular programme it broadcasts.

With a Welsh writer and produced (IIRC) by BBC Wales. It's only the companions that are from London, and the basis of some episodes.
Just thought I'd say.

[Jaffa Cake]

With a Welsh writer and produced (IIRC) by BBC Wales. It's only the companions that are from London, and the basis of some episodes.
Just thought I'd say.Indeed, it is produced by BBC Wales.

However, the Welshman you speak of – Lead Writer and Producer Russell T Davis – is leaving the show, but fret not because fortunately he's being replaced with Steven Moffat, who happens to be a Scot.

Phew! :o

[Lorenz0]

If you look at it like any other subscription service, for what it is per month it's pretty decent value

[trule]

If you look at it like any other subscription service, for what it is per month it's pretty decent value

Good value for sure, if you watch it, I pay tax here but I NEVER watch TV broadcasts...its really great value for me, all that culture and good programming that I have no interest in but still have to pay for.

I would be quite happy if the BBC became a subscription service, they could do with having to work for their money...

[Marble]

Good value for sure, if you watch it, I pay tax here but I NEVER watch TV broadcasts...its really great value for me, all that culture and good programming that I have no interest in but still have to pay for.

I would be quite happy if the BBC became a subscription service, they could do with having to work for their money...

The BBC do work hard, but for a better cause than money.

[babyjenniferLB]

Good value for sure, if you watch it, I pay tax here but I NEVER watch TV broadcasts...its really great value for me, all that culture and good programming that I have no interest in but still have to pay for.

I would be quite happy if the BBC became a subscription service, they could do with having to work for their money...

Totally agree, a subscription to the channels should be a choice and not mandatory for the viewing of the other free channels or for channels you actually pay because you want to watch them.

[MagicWok]

• The World Service in however many squillion languages. The BBC is a public service funded by the British taxpayer, and broadcasts in Russian, Somali and Arabic are not in the British public interest.

• Their web services are too big. Is it really in the British public interest to run the biggest website in the world? Equally, as it's paid for by the British taxpayer, more bandwidth-intensive stuff (audio and video) should be charged for by those outside of the UK. Why should the British taxpayer pay for foreigners watching and listening to their content? I'm aware I watched and listened to a lot of BBC content when living in Paris, but I held the same view then - I'd have happily paid a monthly subscription fee to access the BBC's site, especially the news and radio content.

This is the thing - the BBC needs to create more reasons for it to continue to exist. It bothers me that it is a legal requirement for us to pay for the BBC whether or not we use its services. I fail to see why I should fund the BBC Russian service just because I happen to own a television. It's an old fashioned principle which has reached its end.

The World Service is not funded through the Licence Fee at all, so you do not pay for the BBC Russian Service.

I for one would greatly encourage the BBC's continuing presence online. Especially if they continue to produce services such as iPlayer and the UK News site. It's something that is pushing technology and the market along.

iPlayer is the biggest bandwidth hog of the whole BBC, and should not be charged to foreign users. Users abroad can not access any iPlayer content, and much of the live broadcasts on the the UK News site can only be accessed by UK users also.

~~~

Now while I don't think the licence fee should be increased, I don't think any top-slicing should occur. Also the argument that the BBC should lower the fee until they operate on the level of ITV etc is absurd too for many reasons. What I do like, is that BBC sharing their developments, for example their sharing the BBC iPlayer technology with ITV.

[bigmanathome24]

paying these stupid fees is ridiculous, especially for students and low income house holds. its just another thing that is to be paid for.

what gets me is that you are not allowed to watch out the country. so many other countries let you watch their programs.

the BBC is only producing a few good programs, Top Gear for example or Dr. Who and even those are getting pretty boring. the last series of top gear is just not even that good or exciting. a few funny bits, but not entertaining. heck ive started watching fifth gear, thats sometimes better :eek: (loved the drifting bus' :D)

[jbernie]

As an Aussie who grew up watching lots of British tv shows (no idea if they were all BBC or not)... and no lives in the USA (10 years) I can say that quite a bit of the programming we see on BBC America is much better than the US rubbish. I would happily pay your license fees for better tv viewing, even understanding that not all of it is good :)

[combatcolin]

The license fee is excellent value for money and the BBC is a Cornerstone of British society.

Unless, of course you read the Daily Mail, who object with overcompensation to anything or anyone that doesn't agree with them.

[Jaffa Cake]

On the other side of the coin... Miss Jaffa Cake asked the other day, "When was the last time we watched anything on ITV?"

Apart from football, I can't think of anything I've watched on that channel in ages – certainly no series that I've viewed regularly. Compared to ITV, the BBC's programming is far superior I reckon.

[bartelby]

On the other side of the coin... Miss Jaffa Cake asked the other day, "When was the last time we watched anything on ITV?"

Apart from football, I can't think of anything I've watched on that channel in ages – certainly no series that I've viewed regularly. Compared to ITV, the BBC's programming is far superior I reckon.


I thought you were a Corrie fan.

[Jaffa Cake]

I thought you were a Corrie fan.You're confusing me with calculus. If I want to watch the day-to-day lives of grubby t'Northerners who talk odd I can just set a camera up in my living room.

[raggedjimmi]

I actually don't know when I last watched 5. Or 5ive or whatever they want to call it.
I sometimes catch a glimpse of ITV, and Channel 4 has some good documentaries and comedies from time to time.

But what annoys me muchly is the Sky Mag. Does anyone else get this? It's just a 60 or so page advert for Sky HD. "Hey if you watch this show in HD you'll know it better and it'll MAKE YOUR LIFE SUPER COMPLETE"

[babyjenniferLB]

I actually don't know when I last watched 5. Or 5ive or whatever they want to call it.
I sometimes catch a glimpse of ITV, and Channel 4 has some good documentaries and comedies from time to time.

But what annoys me muchly is the Sky Mag. Does anyone else get this? It's just a 60 or so page advert for Sky HD. "Hey if you watch this show in HD you'll know it better and it'll MAKE YOUR LIFE SUPER COMPLETE"

You see the same happens on both sides of the fence, i have not watched a BBC channel in almost 2 years getting.
Yet in order to watch other channels i would still have to pay for the BBC channels, it would be like everyone in the UK paying the Sci Fi channel or they would be fined for watching TV.

[Marble]

You see the same happens on both sides of the fence, i have not watched a BBC channel in almost 2 years getting.
Yet in order to watch other channels i would still have to pay for the BBC channels, it would be like everyone in the UK paying the Sci Fi channel or they would be fined for watching TV.

Except completely different. The mission statement of a subscription service could never be "to enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/

Making the BBC opt-in would destroy its mandate. At the very best, you would have service interrupted by annoying "pledge drives" like the PBS in America, where they essentially beg for your money until they can afford to get back to broadcasting TV.

Perhaps you're approaching this in the wrong way. Clearly there is a you-shaped gap in the BBC's staggering array of original programming. Why not identify what it is the BBC doesn't offer you and send them a suggestion? They have to listen. Honestly, I would be interested in the answer, too. You mentioned Battlestar Galactica vs. Doctor Who, but you don't like Spooks? What about the new Torchwood?

[dazey]

I get the feeling I am part of a growing minority. I opted out of the licence, living on the ground floor in London means that digital reception sucks to the point of being barely useable and I only ever had a USB reciever. Switching to only being able to watch timeshifted iplayer and channel4 content was hardly hard. The BBC atitude is ridiculous, I have had threatening letters but at no time have I been asked if I have a tv. The harder they threaten the less I want to be involved.

[Marble]

I agree that the letters are obnoxious and a little insulting; they seem to assume guilt.

[babyjenniferLB]

Except completely different. The mission statement of a subscription service could never be "to enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/

Making the BBC opt-in would destroy its mandate. At the very best, you would have service interrupted by annoying "pledge drives" like the PBS in America, where they essentially beg for your money until they can afford to get back to broadcasting TV.

Perhaps you're approaching this in the wrong way. Clearly there is a you-shaped gap in the BBC's staggering array of original programming. Why not identify what it is the BBC doesn't offer you and send them a suggestion? They have to listen. Honestly, I would be interested in the answer, too. You mentioned Battlestar Galactica vs. Doctor Who, but you don't like Spooks? What about the new Torchwood?

Not interested in Spooks does not look like my type of show, i watched the latest episode of torchwood at my fathers i don't really like dumbed down kids stuff in programs that are meant to be taken seriously.

And in response to the BBC mandate does that mean if i set up a company with a mandate to provide a service to the few people in some village that i deserve to be paid annually from every resident in the country, even those that do not use my service?.

Also further the me shaped hole is filled by other channels but in order for me to have the privilege to pay to subscribe to them i must also pay for the BBC, i will not pay twice just to keep a company afloat i do not see any value in.

[weckart]

Also further the me shaped hole is filled by other channels but in order for me to have the privilege to pay to subscribe to them i must also pay for the BBC, i will not pay twice just to keep a company afloat i do not see any value in.

As long as the community, of which you are a part, does see value in the BBC, you will pay.

That was the point I was making likening the BBC's charter with tax funded services. I may not benefit personally from the services, into which my tax monies flow, but as long as the community as a whole does, then I am bound to pay my share. Or I could leave the community.

[babyjenniferLB]

As long as the community, of which you are a part, does see value in the BBC, you will pay.

That was the point I was making likening the BBC's charter with tax funded services. I may not benefit personally from the services, into which my tax monies flow, but as long as the community as a whole does, then I am bound to pay my share. Or I could leave the community.

The community does not benefit from television what nonsense it is to think otherwise.
Television programs are not required and their is always alternatives such as DVD's and digital downloads to avoid the BBC tax. They will not get another penny, nor will i support any business that can not stand on its own feet.

[Marble]

Not interested in Spooks does not look like my type of show, i watched the latest episode of torchwood at my fathers i don't really like dumbed down kids stuff in programs that are meant to be taken seriously.

Okay, fair enough.

And in response to the BBC mandate does that mean if i set up a company with a mandate to provide a service to the few people in some village that i deserve to be paid annually from every resident in the country, even those that do not use my service?.

I don't think that's really an apt comparison. The BBC's mandate is ostensibly for the entire country and no one can say their output is unpopular. They could do more to reach out to the regions, sure, but they provide more variety than any other television company on Earth. Their commission is reviewed on a regular basis to make sure they don't seriously fall off the wagon.

Also further the me shaped hole is filled by other channels.

So which contemporary British programmes do you actually like? The options seem pretty bleak to me if you discount the BBC.

The community does not benefit from television what nonsense it is to think otherwise.
Television programs are not required and their is always alternatives such as DVD's and digital downloads to avoid the BBC tax. They will not get another penny, nor will i support any business that can not stand on its own feet.

Do you really believe that the UK would be better off without the BBC? They almost singlehandedly support the arts in this country. (And supply the majority of digital downloads.) Losing talent to the 'States is already a problem, but without the clout and the resources of the Beeb, it would be pandemic. If DVDs were really the primary method of entertainment, where would the country's money go? Hollywood.

Right now, Britain hits way above its weight when it comes to cultural output. You even export IP to the 'States. In my opinion, without a publicly funded BBC, Britain would lose one of its few remaining economic advantages, and its entire international image. Americans mainly think of the British as a sophisticated people - why is that? Because the BBC is a fantastic ambassador.

[weckart]

The community does not benefit from television what nonsense it is to think otherwise.

Disingenuous and manifestly false. If this were true, nobody in the community would waste money on television and the BBC and others would be history.

[AppleMatt]

The community does not benefit from television what nonsense it is to think otherwise.

I think you're letting your argument run away with itself here. For example, accessible dissemination of information; benefits community, done via TV.

AppleMatt

[miniConvert]

I believe the BBC provides the best quality television, radio, and online services in the UK, and is an institution we should continue to invest in. Increments in the licence fee are regrettable but necessary.

[babyjenniferLB]

I believe the BBC provides the best quality television, radio, and online services in the UK, and is an institution we should continue to invest in. Increments in the licence fee are regrettable but necessary.

I wonder how this opinion differs by region. It may be hard to find any BBC supporters in Scotland or even Wales but as you get further south to the target market of the EBC i assume that the support grows for having a company take money from everyone to fund your television programs.

And i happen to think that if we must have a TV licence then Channel 4, ITV, and Channel 5(shudder) at the least should get a percentage of this fee as they often provide equal quality of programming. They provide the same news coverage, same quality of soaps, more regular movie spots and yet they do this without imposing a licence fee on everyone regardless of viewing preference.


Perhaps a little lost on some people is it should not be the case that those whom choose not to watch the BBC should still be forced to subsidise it for everyone else.
The attitude that i should want to watch the programs is just as arrogant and ridiculous as the licence fee itself. Do you truly believe every single person must like what you like, or pay for the things you like.

The truth is the BBC Sci Fi is dumbed down nonsense with way to much silliness to appeal to the masses that can't follow a plot past 2 episodes.
To use doctor who for an example the very first episode the graphics looked like they were rendered right out of a game, the creature design in further episodes is worse than even those used in Star Trek TNG which i will had has a good decade on Doctor Who.
This Touchwood which was advertised as a "Adult" Doctor Who is just a dreadful and has uninteresting and childish plot lines with poor effects and costume design.
Both suffer from having the set almost always be London for a time traveller the Doctor does not go very far, and for such alien invasions the UK would most certainly not be the target as it is far more likely to be a area of a large population.

If this is what i should be watching to be with the in crowd these days then i choose to stick to buying the occasional DVD, i will not pay for drivel.

[mooblie]

......This Touchwood....... suffer from having the set almost always be London.....

Just a couple of points of information:
i) it's Torchwood (not "Touchwood") - it's an anagram of Doctor Who
ii) and it's set almost exclusively in Cardiff. Cardiff, Wales, that is.

Have you actually watched this stuff that you're attacking? I suppose your answer reasonably enough might be "no, of course not"!

:)

[babyjenniferLB]

Just a couple of points of information:
i) it's Torchwood (not "Touchwood") - it's an anagram of Doctor Who
ii) and it's set almost exclusively in Cardiff. Cardiff, Wales, that is.

Have you actually watched this stuff that you're attacking? I suppose your answer reasonably enough might be "no, of course not"!

:)

I am referring to Doctor Who try quoting the full sentence and not the bits you like. And of course thank you for correcting the name of the program it makes such a difference to my argument if the name of the program is spelt correctly or not.
And of course i have watched it i would not be able to make any claim to the quality of the program without having done so, i have seen the first 2 episodes and a further recent one last week at my fathers. On all three occasions the script and acting was sub par(perhaps due to a poor script) and they where based in London to my eye though the name of the city was not mentioned the architecture looked English.

[Marble]

Anyway, I agree with you about Doctor Who and Torchwood (and would add the abominable Merlin and Robin Hood), also that the BBC don't really take SF or fantasy (Big Idea) TV seriously at this time. Still, I think they are an invaluable service that contributes tremendously to the public good. Entertainment is another form of education and is quite necessary to life. Even discounting the BBC's myriad other public services, the Corporation does a fairly good job keeping that in mind.

[weckart]

Perhaps a little lost on some people is it should not be the case that those whom choose not to watch the BBC should still be forced to subsidise it for everyone else.


This point is not lost on anyone. On the contrary, you seem to be struggling with the concept of community funded broadcasting as distinct from for profit televisual entertainment.

The BBC enjoys its privileged funding precisely because it has obligations as laid out in its charter. All of its surpluses are ploughed back into programming. There are no shareholders to buy off. None of its competitors, with the exception of Channel 4, is similarly hampered. Channel 4 also has a duty to provide an element of community (read unpopular to the masses) television, for which it received a cut of the licence to subsidise its broadcasting overheads. This was to continue until Channel 4 was established enough to survive on its own merits, after which it became liable for contributions to the broadcasting pot.

The position of the BBC is not unique. After all, Royal Mail has existed under a similar privileged charter for longer, although it has any number of competitors. Those South of England inhabitants you deem overly blessed pay more than strictly necessary for local postal deliveries precisely so that those in remoter areas of Scotland can benefit from the same services at no extra cost. I hear no great clamour for dismantling this institution, although postal costs in larger urban areas might fall as a result.

[The Phazer]

The community does not benefit from television what nonsense it is to think otherwise.

The British public spends infinately more of their lives watching television - and thus learning about the world - than they do in schools.

To think that it isn't important to the community and thus shouldn't be left to the whims of the market is very foolish indeed.

Phazer

[The Phazer]

On all three occasions the script and acting was sub par(perhaps due to a poor script) and they where based in London to my eye though the name of the city was not mentioned the architecture looked English.

What a stupid thing to say given that it's explicitly stated on dozens of occassions to be set in Cardiff in the show, and is very obviously shot there! Heck, Torchwood headquarters is in Ronald Dahl Plass, probably the most famous street in Wales!

Phazer