BBC Discussion

[Duke Fame]

I beg to differ. To simplify, the rich man gets more and pays more for it, that's how it's always worked surely? I assume he didn't get all his multiple tvs, broadband package, dab radios free of charge?

The key word here is "service". It's not compulsory, so there is absolutely no obligation to use it.  Everyone has a choice. Like you can choose whether or not to have a car, but if you do, you pay the same petrol price as everyone else. I don't see anyone campaigning for fuel income taxes.

The issue is that because the service can be received, despite it only representing 5/600ths of what is receivable on the £5 TV kit, my Brother in law has to shell out a huge amount of money.

Your petrol example is right, you are paying as you consume and have a choice, with a TV set you simply do not have a choice.

I am just saying that income tax would be preferable but reality is that I'd prefer to see adverts so the likes of my BIL can pay on consumption be allowing adverts into his viewing.

[Melancholyflower]

I'll take my experience, my brother in law works long hours, shift work but it's not the best pay in the world. As a favour, we gave him an old TV which is a CRT and a DVD player. If i sold it on Ebay it may have got be £5 but in giving him that TV, he;s liable for the £193 of his earnings which is around 30 hours of working. He doesn't get to consume much TV as he works long hours

A more successful pal of mine lives in a rather posh place, the kids have their bedrooms as well as a social room, there are smart TV's in every room, internet access all over the place as well as DAB radios. He bills out at around £200 per hour, his wife is a social butterfly, kids etc. He gets huge value from the TV licence as he gets TV, catch up, streaming, hard disk back up, DAB, internet and normal radio uses BBC internet a lot, the kids use all this along with the wife.   It costs him less than 1 hour of work.

That is why it it a poorer service for the poorest and how the poorest pay more.

I beg to differ. To simplify, the rich man gets more and pays more for it, that's how it's always worked surely? I assume he didn't get all his multiple tvs, broadband package, dab radios free of charge?

The key word here is "service". It's not compulsory, so there is absolutely no obligation to use it.  Everyone has a choice. Like you can choose whether or not to have a car, but if you do, you pay the same petrol price as everyone else. I don't see anyone campaigning for fuel income taxes.

[marplerambler]

Has no-one else ever experienced the real fun of real BBC baiting?  In the 1990s I had five wonderful years of living in a house without a television. At work all day and out walking at weekends I hardly ever watched the TV so when I moved to a different address I simply didn't bother. Five years of realising that I was not missing very much and the true joy was not Cistercian silence it was five years of radio (listening to BBC Radio 3 and Radio 4 of course, Classic FM from 1992) and reading. During this time the Beeb/TV licensing must have spent more than the equivalent of a license fee harassing me non-stop. The weekly threatening letter was opened, resealed put back in the post box unstamped with 'Return to Sender. No television at this address' or 'I wish your TV detector van guys luck: they will be sitting there all night', 'Thank you for your kind letter informing me that you will prosecute - I very much look forward to seeing you in Court'. Seeing the ever increasing threatening tone of the letters as time passed was a revelation but surprise, surprise there was never a knock on the door or a court summons. It was a hell of a lot more fun than Coronation Street!

[Duke Fame]

That's true, Marplerambler. It's also true, however, that the great majority of viewers watch BBC1 and the vast majority of listeners tune into Radios 1 and 2, none of which are particularly distinctive and all of which could be just as easily be delivered by private companies.

Furthermore, the private companys tends to deliver popular culture in a better way. Corrie v Eastenders; Sky Sports v MOTD, X-factor v popstars the rivals etc etc.

It's easy to say that US tv is rubbish but US tv is sold in far greater numbers than UK output, the likes of the Simpsons, Sesame Street, Games of Thrones, Big Bang theory, etc etc.

Reality is that the opinion of good content is subjective, the point being that ownership makes no difference to the output.

[Bowden Guy]

That's true, Marplerambler. It's also true, however, that the great majority of viewers watch BBC1 and the vast majority of listeners tune into Radios 1 and 2, none of which are particularly distinctive and all of which could be just as easily be delivered by private companies.

[marplerambler]

I suppose that I should also add that the American model does promote 'Nevermind the quality feel the width'. Most of the output is total rubbish. The license does give us BBC2, BBC4, Radio Three and Radio Four

[marplerambler]

Duke states

Income tax would be a far fairer method of financing the BBC but I still don't see the need to do so.

When the BBC started, it was quote right  that the state should have a broadcasting vehicle to convince the little people to take up arms and bash johnny foreigner and give him what for. There was also the aspect that no private company could afford to set up the expensive equipment required and in any case, very few punters could afford to buy the receiving equipment and many just built hooky sets to avoid the costs involved so there were not that many listeners (later viewers) in order to make broadcasting pay.

Wikipedia states:
 Unlike most other English-language countries, the United States does not have a federal government-owned national broadcaster, and the country's international government-operated broadcasters overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (the most widely known being Voice of America) were expressly forbidden from being marketed to American citizens until 2013 and still neither owns nor affiliates with any AM or FM station.

I am surprised that Duke does not adhere to the more fundamental philosophy of the American government's approach to broadcasting. There is a lot of money to be made by the government selling licenses to use them there airwaves.

[Duke Fame]

You seem to have mix arguments here. So am I to assume you would not be happy with the BBC being funded say from Income Tax, that would still not meet your satisfaction as you just don't like the product.

Income tax would be a far fairer method of financing the BBC but I still don't see the need to do so.

State owned industry should only be where there is market failure or for security interests. When the BBC started, it was quote right  that the state should have a broadcasting vehicle to convince the little people to take up arms and bash johnny foreigner and give him what for. There was also the aspect that no private company could afford to set up the expensive equipment required and in any case, very few punters could afford to buy the receiving equipment and many just built hooky sets to avoid the costs involved so there were not that many listeners (later viewers) in order to make broadcasting pay. So, in comes the state and they paid for the broadcasting whilst the technology got cheaper and more affordable. You could argue that it should have been privatised in the 30's but the war started and the state needed it's propaganda machine.

Fast forward to now, most of us can see through the state propaganda and there is enough rival broadcasting to get all sides of an argument. The huge cost of entry to the market has gone as we can make our own recordings with our phones and there are 600 channels available so broadcasters have plenty competition with new entrants all the time.

In short, there is no need for a state broadcaster anymore, now is the time to privatise it before it's too late.

[wheels]

You seem to have mix arguments here. So am I to assume you would not be happy with the BBC being funded say from Income Tax, that would still not meet your satisfaction as you just don't like the product.

[Duke Fame]

But it's not a poll tax or anything like it. You have a perfect right not to pay the fee. Just don't use the service.

But that's the point, there is not a choice. we can choose not to use the TV licence services but if we have a cheap telly, we have to pay the tax. I like Television X, Babestation etc and these great TV channels do not get a penny of the TV licence yet, if I watched in the old way via a satellite box, I have to pay for your BBC rubbish like Eastenders, Voice, Homes under the hammer etc.

Seems then that you and your brother in law conspired to make him liable for the fee. You should not have offered and he should not have accepted then he would not have to pay the licence fee...

You may be right, but the point is that it really is not a very fair system and the cost could easily be removed but for a few dewy eyed stick in the muds who are so selfish, they expect everyone else to pay for their own indulgences.

[wheels]

I'll take my experience, my brother in law works long hours, shift work but it's not the best pay in the world. As a favour, we gave him an old TV which is a CRT and a DVD player. If i sold it on Ebay it may have got be £5 but in giving him that TV, he;s liable for the £193 of his earnings which is around 30 hours of working. He doesn't get to consume much TV as he works long hours

A more successful pal of mine lives in a rather posh place, the kids have their bedrooms as well as a social room, there are smart TV's in every room, internet access all over the place as well as DAB radios. He bills out at around £200 per hour, his wife is a social butterfly, kids etc. He gets huge value from the TV licence as he gets TV, catch up, streaming, hard disk back up, DAB, internet and normal radio uses BBC internet a lot, the kids use all this along with the wife.   It costs him less than 1 hour of work.

That is why it it a poorer service for the poorest and how the poorest pay more.

Seems then that you and your brother in law conspired to make him liable for the fee. You should not have offered and he should not have accepted then he would not have to pay the licence fee...

[Bowden Guy]

Duke's argument is backed up by a recent article in the Guardian (no less....)

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/22/poorest-uk-households-pay-half-income-tax-campaigners

The implication is that, if you want greater social equality, we should get rid of flat rate taxes like the TV licence fee that unfairly discriminate against the poorest members of society.

[Duke Fame]

Please explain how the poorest get the worst service, duke fame?

I'll take my experience, my brother in law works long hours, shift work but it's not the best pay in the world. As a favour, we gave him an old TV which is a CRT and a DVD player. If i sold it on Ebay it may have got be £5 but in giving him that TV, he;s liable for the £193 of his earnings which is around 30 hours of working. He doesn't get to consume much TV as he works long hours

A more successful pal of mine lives in a rather posh place, the kids have their bedrooms as well as a social room, there are smart TV's in every room, internet access all over the place as well as DAB radios. He bills out at around £200 per hour, his wife is a social butterfly, kids etc. He gets huge value from the TV licence as he gets TV, catch up, streaming, hard disk back up, DAB, internet and normal radio uses BBC internet a lot, the kids use all this along with the wife.   It costs him less than 1 hour of work.

That is why it it a poorer service for the poorest and how the poorest pay more.

[Melancholyflower]

Please explain how the poorest get the worst service, duke fame?

[Duke Fame]

Here goes, although feels like I'm just feeding the trolls.
What should the BBC aspire to becoming then, by taking a subscription only service ?  I've seen lots of Murdoch output, like this week's Fox News, and I wasn't right impressed.
ITV : Fox News commentator apologises after claiming Birmingham is a 'totally Muslim city where non-Muslims don't go'

His claim in that piece which really sounded wrong was when Steven Emerson said Birmingham was a beautiful city, he clearly hadn't been there.

Fox has it's place in the market rather like the Daily Mirror, Record or Sun has in the UK newspaper market or even for that matter the BBC's news on BBC Three. It's ridiculous to suggest the BBC will become a Fox if it were owned by shareholders, why would it when Fox exists? People buying BBC shares will do so knowing the strength of the BBC brand and I'd imagine, appoint a management structure that develops & exploits that brand on a world market. When Rolls Royce car division was privatised, it did not start to sell cheap consumable hatchbacks, it developed it's brand, When VW bought it, it didn't make a mass market Rolls Royce hatchback even though it's expertise was in this market? Now BMW owns it and Rolls Royce is a huge seller throughout the world and genuinely a benchmark for excellence.

The point is that the BBC will continue to produce it's current mixed bag of media throughout the world, the difference is that it will bring more money in rather than be a poll tax for the population. 

 

Nope.  They would lose their unique status and become just another media company.

That's all it is, it has a decent brand for now.

Nope.  They already sell their content around the world, achieving over a billion pounds in revenue each year.  That keeps the license fee nice and cheap for us folks in blighty.
BBC Worldwide Annual Review 2013/2014

BBC worldwide is only scraping the surface, it brings in some revenue but it could be so much more. the advertising BBCworldwide has is pathetic right now, as a private entity, it could be huge and contribute so much more to the treasury.

Nope.  But perhaps others are so selfish they would prefer to see the rich and powerful dictating what content appears on the screens, To the detriment and exclusion of the poorest in society.

How would that be the case if the BBC were privatised? a simple entry in the M&A's and treasury 'magic' share could keep the model in the UK accessible to all.

It's simple enough, in the UK we can have two models, subscription and advertising. Those who subscribe can get the BBC advert-free, they sill get the current bulked out programs (compare the UK apprentice on the BBC and that on satellite, the BBC version bulks it out with repeated shots of Suralansugar driving around the North Circular in his Roller whilst the commercial version strips this out so we can have a break and be invited to drink R whites lemonade in secret.  The subscriber will get extra ads for BBC content and the blokes in wheelchairs doing wheelies. Those who take advertising will simply pay for their viewing by accepting advertising.

There will be no need for the TV police, TVtax enforcement, court time, criminalising the poorest in society.

The model right now is deeply unfair, the poorest get the worst service and pay the same price as those who consume the most.