O/T tv licence

[Scum-Triumphant]

Im reading this thread in reverse. Totally agree with Kerr. Im a regular on radio 2 and 4 and 5Live.

I tend to prefer live football on radio to watching it on tv. TMS and boxing is excellent. The specialist pod cast type sports shows are equally good.

Radio and the web site is worth the licence fee alone.

I too agree with this. I like Talksport in a morning, Radio 2 for the afternoon and Radio 6 in the evening and weekend. I watch PMQs on BBC Parliament every Wednesday and read the news and sport on the BBC website.

The Iplayer and BBC Bitesize are great resources for teaching and learning so I use them with my students when necessary and I catch MOTD on it which means I can FFW the talking.

Meaning I get good value for money but I can't help feeling it is a tax forced upon people that may not want to use it. Given the choice I would carry on paying it. I think if it went to a public vote the BBC would be no more.

[Brin]

Like say that famous free to air service Sky? No wait. Netflix, that's free... no wait doesn't have adverts though. Apple TV that mus be free? Nope. Disney plus for the kids? Sorry. Amazon Prime! Not free.

Still at least yo have a phone line so BT Sports must be... ahhh no again.

Mind the TV license covers all the radio stations and the website as well, including stuff like Bitesize for the kids. Or you can subscribe elsewhere...

If you see the license fee as a subscription, it is comparable to any other service and in most cases much cheaper.

But with very little choice of channels other then re runs on i -player so no, it's not comparable.

[wendun]

I am completely against the licence fee on ideological grounds. The BBC is a pernicious organisation and I don't like being obliged to subsidise it. People have the wrong idea of "Auntie": believe me if you fall out with the BBC they can be a nasty vindictive bunch. A friend of mine sent in a drama on Bomber Command in WW2. No interest. Characters were "too white, too middle class." So we sent in a spoof outline about a group of black immigrants who impersonated a bomber crew and flew on a mission under a transgender lesbian pilot. When they realised they were supposed to bomb civilians in Dresden they aborted the raid and led the whole formation back to bomb Whitehall. The BBC immediately asked for a full work up on the project with a view to commissioning it for radio.

[great_fire]

I am completely against the licence fee on ideological grounds. The BBC is a pernicious organisation and I don't like being obliged to subsidise it. People have the wrong idea of "Auntie": believe me if you fall out with the BBC they can be a nasty vindictive bunch. A friend of mine sent in a drama on Bomber Command in WW2. No interest. Characters were "too white, too middle class." So we sent in a spoof outline about a group of black immigrants who impersonated a bomber crew and flew on a mission under a transgender lesbian pilot. When they realised they were supposed to bomb civilians in Dresden they aborted the raid and led the whole formation back to bomb Whitehall. The BBC immediately asked for a full work up on the project with a view to commissioning it for radio.

Sounds PC enough for a Radio 4 afternoon play.

KerrAvon will be listening even if no-one else is.

[Brin]

I went to South Grove and had a stint on free school meals. I wouldn't say that I am obvious snob material, but fair enough.

I have recently watched 'The Planets' on iPlayer. I doubt whether that woud have been made if the BBC had been required to sell advertising to fund it. Would advertising big spenders like the online betting and bingo industry have shelled out to try to capture business from its viewers? Would they consider its audience to fit their target demographic? I doubt it and I think it would be a huge shame if it were not made. It is readily accessible science and maybe I am being idealistic and snobby, but I would like to think that it might have helped to capture the imagination of at least some kids and got them into a love of science and given them a bit of direction at school. 'Horizon' did that for me when I was a kid.

And if we are talking The Planets then that leads to a very niche programme - The Sky at Night. I have watched it maybe two or three times in my life, but for amateur astronomers (who are a part of the UK population and entitled to a bit of consideration), I woud imagine that it is required viewing. There is no way that it would be made if it had to attract advertising. Countryfile is another one; it has moved away from its purely farming focus over the years, but it still serves the rural community of the country.

Another thing that has to be borne in mind is that advertising funded TV is not free. Customers of 'Go Compare' and 'Foxy Bingo' are paying for it. I have tried to find some figures on the internet without sucess, but I recall being told a few years ago (possibly on a Radio 4 programme) how much of the price of a box of washing powder represented advertising costs - it was absurd - 30%+, if I recall correctly.

And, of course, there is a limited pool of advertising money available. If it suddenly had to be shared across the BBC as well, I don't think it would be just the BBC who found that they could no longer afford to make quality TV.

Fair points made and I retract and apologise for the use of the word snob. It was inappropriate and uncalled for.

[Scum-Triumphant]

Fair points made and I retract and apologise for the use of the word snob. It was inappropriate and uncalled for.

Fair play Brin.

You can call me a snob if you like though.

[KerrAvon]

Fair points made and I retract and apologise for the use of the word snob. It was inappropriate and uncalled for.

No worries.

[wendun]

Kerr, whose opinion I value enormously usually is here talking bollox. I am both an amateur astronomer and a smallholder. I used to watch The Sky at Night but it's hardly essential viewing. Countryfile is a joke. Typical of the Beeb is "Tweet of the Day" on Radio 4 at 5.59 every morning. Started off with bits on British birds given by bird watchers. Then morphed into a platform for rock stars and the usual suspects, Fry, Attenborough, Kate Humble etc, etc, flown off to the Argentinian pampas to pontificate about the Lesser Spotted Golden Fill My Wallet bird.

[WanChaiMiller]

No worries.

Being on free school meals doesnt in its itself absolve one of snobbery. I cant help thinking Brins given up on this linr of thought too easily. Lol.

[CAMiller]

This Country is a perfect example of what you mean but it is the exception.

There was a time when comedy screen writers would be falling over themselves to get into the BBC. Inside Number 9 is excellent when it's more funny than dark but it is fairly subjective (My wife hates it)

Talking of comedy shows, I recently started the US version of The Office. In 12 episodes and a xmas special Ricky Gervais managed to tell develop several characters and complete all their arcs. Whilst funny in it's own right, I cannot understand why there are so many, So far I have watched 24 and I am still not off the second series. It is like watching the same episode over and over again.

Maybe CAM can answer why this works better for american viewers but I am going to stop watching in a few more episodes because it's boring.

Americans do great drama but really laboured comedy.

I think it is down to the fact that US broadcast TV dictates that writers must commit to producing 24-36 episodes per season (Sep-May) hence massive dilution. There are 4 broadcast channels, ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX and it seems every year each one tries to introduce one or two new 'family' comedies so you can guess how much crap gets aired and some are so bad they only get through 2-3 episodes before getting axed. Consequentially, successful ones run for ever and end up with so many episodes you could fill a small terraced house with the DVD boxed sets e.g. Cheers, Seinfeld, Friends, The Office.....

Drama suffers the same fate, e.g. Lost was good for a while but dragged on so long they might as well have renamed it Total Boll.ocks