UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
T i m
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Do I need a TV licence" a solution ?

Hi All,

And first I would like to say 'thanks' for all those who contributed
and 'sorry' that it kicked off like it did (no I'm not, it's (nearly)
all interesting stuff and what the usenet is all about eh)!

Anyway, I *think* we have come to the conclusion that the spirit of
the whole thing is that we don't need a TV licence if we don't watch
broadcast information and to help pin that down don't tune our kit in
or fit an aerial quiet at the back ::Jerry:: ;-)

Anyway, though all this debate and talking to a mate today *I* came to
the conclusion the BBC should scramble their transmissions and let us
pay for it if we want it?

(Personally I think I'd go without .. )

There you are ...problem solved! zips fireproof suit up

All the best ..

T i m



  #2   Report Post  
Owain
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"T i m" wrote
| Anyway, though all this debate and talking to a mate today *I*
| came to the conclusion the BBC should scramble their
| transmissions and let us pay for it if we want it?

Quite possible, and not that unlikely in the longer term, with digital.

| (Personally I think I'd go without .. )

There lies the crux of the matter. The BBC only works as it does because it
gets £whatever from 99% of households. If it were scrambled the argument
would be to make it a subscription service in competition with other
subscription services i.e. you could subscribe to $ky and *not* BBC if you
so choose. To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of
households subscribing would triple the subscription cost. There is also the
dilemma of how services such as radio would be funded. At the moment
everyone with a TV licence pays for radio, and as almost everyone has a TV
and almost everyone listens to radio at some time or another, there is no
great unfairness. However the theoretical 1/3rd of households subscribing to
BBCTV might be less willing to pay for radio -- or BBC management might be
less willing to divert funds from subscription TV to a lower profile
activity. And much BBC radio really is a jewel in the corporation's crown.

Owain


  #3   Report Post  
T i m
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:15:25 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote
| Anyway, though all this debate and talking to a mate today *I*
| came to the conclusion the BBC should scramble their
| transmissions and let us pay for it if we want it?

Quite possible, and not that unlikely in the longer term, with digital.


I was thinking that as I wrote it ..

| (Personally I think I'd go without .. )

There lies the crux of the matter. The BBC only works as it does because it
gets £whatever from 99% of households. If it were scrambled the argument
would be to make it a subscription service in competition with other
subscription services i.e. you could subscribe to $ky and *not* BBC if you
so choose.


That was what I was thinking (rather than this blanket "you use a TV
therefore you pay *US*"?

To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of
households subscribing would triple the subscription cost.


If your guesstimate is right then wouldn't that reflect the perceived
'value' of their output and demonstrate why lots of people feel the
licence is expensive (as do I but still got one). We don't
'subscribe' to any services via our Cable box / no Sky etc.

There is also the
dilemma of how services such as radio would be funded. At the moment
everyone with a TV licence pays for radio, and as almost everyone has a TV
and almost everyone listens to radio at some time or another, there is no
great unfairness.


Again, I have spent what little time I actually listen to the radio
(normally only in the car / bathroom) with Capital Radio' but now
sometimes find myself with (as I get older g I'm 47) Radio1
(especially when out of range of Capital).

However the theoretical 1/3rd of households subscribing to
BBCTV might be less willing to pay for radio -- or BBC management might be
less willing to divert funds from subscription TV to a lower profile
activity. And much BBC radio really is a jewel in the corporation's crown.


Possibly. Maybe I just don't buy into this 'BBC Club' thing. I have no
doubt that they 'make good TV' but it's rarely anything that interests
me?

I suppose because I don't generally watch TV (in the real WATCH sense,
it's often on for 'company' and to mask my Tinnitus) I think I would
prefer to keep the cash (or choose another pay service to watch) more
than I would miss the few programes I may loose? Not sure how 'she'
could live without Corry or Enders (or whatever is on BBC) .. loosing
both would be reason enough for me NOT to buy the licence!

All the best ..

T i m
  #4   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


T i m wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:15:25 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote
| Anyway, though all this debate and talking to a mate today *I*
| came to the conclusion the BBC should scramble their
| transmissions and let us pay for it if we want it?

Quite possible, and not that unlikely in the longer term, with

digital.

I was thinking that as I wrote it ..

| (Personally I think I'd go without .. )

There lies the crux of the matter. The BBC only works as it does

because it
gets =A3whatever from 99% of households. If it were scrambled the

argument
would be to make it a subscription service in competition with other
subscription services i.e. you could subscribe to $ky and *not* BBC

if you
so choose.


That was what I was thinking (rather than this blanket "you use a TV
therefore you pay *US*"?

To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of
households subscribing would triple the subscription cost.


If your guesstimate is right then wouldn't that reflect the perceived
'value' of their output and demonstrate why lots of people feel the
licence is expensive (as do I but still got one). We don't
'subscribe' to any services via our Cable box / no Sky etc.


It's still cheaper than even the most basic Sky package and far cheaper
than any Sky package with a reasonable amount of content comparable to
waht you get from the BBC.

MBQ

  #5   Report Post  
Christian McArdle
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's still cheaper than even the most basic Sky package and far
cheaper than any Sky package with a reasonable amount of content
comparable to waht you get from the BBC.


Especially as much of the content of the Sky package will be re runs of BBC
programmes.

Christian.




  #6   Report Post  
Owain
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christian McArdle" wrote
| It's still cheaper than even the most basic Sky package and
| far cheaper than any Sky package with a reasonable amount
| of content comparable to waht you get from the BBC.
| Especially as much of the content of the Sky package will be
| re runs of BBC programmes.

And if the BBC stops making programmes, what will Sky show in future ...

Owain


  #7   Report Post  
Owain
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"T i m" wrote
| To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of
| households subscribing would triple the subscription cost.
| If your guesstimate is right then wouldn't that reflect the perceived
| 'value' of their output and demonstrate why lots of people feel the
| licence is expensive

That's because the majority of people are really rather stupid. The point of
the BBC is that it is a public service broadcaster, not dependent on
recruiting viewers for its customers (the advertisers). It should be able to
do things on grounds of quality rather than commercial viability. I don't
think it does that well enough.

| Again, I have spent what little time I actually listen to the radio
| (normally only in the car / bathroom) with Capital Radio' but now
| sometimes find myself with (as I get older g I'm 47) Radio1
| (especially when out of range of Capital).

I wonder what the average age of a Radio 1 listener is now.

Owain


  #8   Report Post  
T i m
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 27 Jan 2005 03:15:31 -0800, wrote:


It's still cheaper than even the most basic Sky package and far cheaper
than any Sky package with a reasonable amount of content comparable to
waht you get from the BBC.


You are probably right, as long as you watch that much of any of it?

The sort of stuff *I* would schedule to watch just doesn't seem to be
broadcast by the BBC very often (or at all?).

Like. I used to like Top Gear .. I still watch it but I'm less into
this 'lifestyle' thing and more into engineering. Driven or other
similar progs actually seem better as they have a greater scope.

Things like 'Countryfile' can be mildly interesting but at the end of
the year it (and same with many other progs) just seems to be repeats
of the years 'best bits' .. (lazy programming or what)?

Buzzcocks is ok and as I'm sitting here I can't think of much else I
would rush home for? I have no interest in football, tennis, golf or
athletics and think the 'soaps' are just un-entertaining?

So what would I like to see .. probably stuff that I might (not really
looked) get for free via the free (non BBC) chans provided by NTL or
Freeview? More varied SiFi stuff, science and technology, motor sports
(not F1, Rally, / Rallycross, Go-Cart, Powerboats, Dakkar, Off Road,
Hill Climb, Motorcross, extreme stuff like Monster truck or Jet boat
etc etc) news / weather and something that seems very thin on the
ground these days, real comedy (not this feeble American / 'Soft'
stuff that's everywhere .. canned laughter n all ..). Even
environmental stuff has got to be of more use / interest than being
told net curtians to be 'terrible' in yet another makeover show? ;-(

I'm not saying this is good for everyone, just *I* can only watch so
many deer getting chased and killed by 'big cats' .. good / clever
photography or otherwise .. sigh

All the best ..

T i m
  #9   Report Post  
T i m
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:23:21 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

It's still cheaper than even the most basic Sky package and far
cheaper than any Sky package with a reasonable amount of content
comparable to waht you get from the BBC.


Especially as much of the content of the Sky package will be re runs of BBC
programmes.


Exactly .. yawn ;-(

T i m
  #10   Report Post  
T i m
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:44:28 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote
| To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of
| households subscribing would triple the subscription cost.
| If your guesstimate is right then wouldn't that reflect the perceived
| 'value' of their output and demonstrate why lots of people feel the
| licence is expensive

That's because the majority of people are really rather stupid. The point of
the BBC is that it is a public service broadcaster, not dependent on
recruiting viewers for its customers (the advertisers). It should be able to
do things on grounds of quality rather than commercial viability. I don't
think it does that well enough.


Can't speak for others but *I* don't believe I get good value from the
BBC for my £10 / month? *I* would rather subscribe to a couple of
cable channel packs *instead* (but don't have the choice). Something
that I find odd in itself in this day and age of choice and
flexibility. Paying for something you don't want or need with no way
to opt out without loosing every broadcast chan.? Like these mobile
phone SMS scams .. getting something you don't want and didn't ask
for and can't (easily) stop without turning your phone off and cutting
off the aerial. Everone is up in arms about that though?

| Again, I have spent what little time I actually listen to the radio
| (normally only in the car / bathroom) with Capital Radio' but now
| sometimes find myself with (as I get older g I'm 47) Radio1
| (especially when out of range of Capital).

I wonder what the average age of a Radio 1 listener is now.


Good question .. want to start a DIY poll Owain? ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LF: Paneling Solution Les Nessman Home Repair 5 August 22nd 04 05:25 AM
Condensation – Is this a good solution? - Advice Sought Robin Smith UK diy 14 December 27th 03 10:48 PM
Solution to sewer tree root problem? jeff Home Repair 20 September 7th 03 01:36 PM
Solution to sewer tree root problem? jeff Home Ownership 17 August 28th 03 11:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"