FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Rest in peace: BBC part 2
Rest in peace: BBC part 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
""You really can't put your point of view across without being insulting can you? That just shows the mentality of a BBC addict. "
And how easily insulted non-bbc viewers are. Must be the big words.
"I also think it's quite crass of you to believe that everybody can afford £145 a year for something they can do without. Just because you think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio Blah is worth the money alone, to other people, especially financially struggling families, £145 can buy quite a few meals. As I've said before, there should be a choice. Why don't you just pay for your own, and a few other peoples' licences if you're so well off?"
I think if you're in such dire financial straits that telly in general should be pretty fucking far down on your list of priorities for any income you do have. And I don't know where I said I was well off. Just that I can afford £140 a year. Is that the measure of a persons solvency now?
And scrapping the license fee is hardly going to help hard up telly watchers is it? I've already posted the basic cost of the only alternative and it's a lot more.
Sky is a commercial venture and as such would be a better target for any anger on the cost of viewing. They're already charging you again for the freeview channels. That's channels you've already paid to watch through the license fee. How many channels out of those others you recieve from them do you actually watch?
Probably a tiny amount. They have the facilities to monitor your viewing and block channels at will as anyone who's dared unplug the phone line from the sky box while under contract will know. Why not ask them if you can only pay for the channels you want then?
Because they'll tell you to fuck off, because any choice you think you might have with them is purely an illusion.""
Once again, your post has to include insults and profanities to get your point across. The simple fact of the matter is that you want an entertainment channel, and you want everyone else to pay for what you want, without being willing to do anything extra yourself. I would suggest that you maybe pick up a book, do some voluntary work, or just go for a nice healthy walk, then you won't be so beholden to a multi-million pound television network to make your life slightly less unbearable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Had sky for about 15 years its not connected to the phone line neither are the multi-room boxes.I choose to have sky because I enjoy watching the sports channels I also have Bt sport.Its nice to be able to choose what I want and how much I want to pay!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am a BBC addict,
I love listening to the Radio in my car, I love watching lots of channels on Freeview and I love my mobile phone being able to pick up Fab wherever I am on 3G or one day 4G
All the above provided by the BBC. if it is received by Radio signal in the UK then the BBC own it.
The programs they put out are also included in the £140 if you want to watch / listen...
Bargain  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I am a BBC addict,
I love listening to the Radio in my car, I love watching lots of channels on Freeview and I love my mobile phone being able to pick up Fab wherever I am on 3G or one day 4G
All the above provided by the BBC. if it is received by Radio signal in the UK then the BBC own it.
The programs they put out are also included in the £140 if you want to watch / listen...
Bargain "
But would you be willing to pay more for those services, so that those who don't want or need them don't have to pay? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But would you be willing to pay more for those services, so that those who don't want or need them don't have to pay?"
I would want to know that those don't pay don't use a mobile phone or car radio either before I thought it fine for them not to pay... at the moment they can get away with it as these things are funded on the back of the TV license |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"But would you be willing to pay more for those services, so that those who don't want or need them don't have to pay?
I would want to know that those don't pay don't use a mobile phone or car radio either before I thought it fine for them not to pay... at the moment they can get away with it as these things are funded on the back of the TV license"
So, given the conditions you describe, all of which I would suspect are possible given the digital technology that exists, you would be willing for the BBC to operate as a pay per view/listen service? I agree. Those that desperately need it should pay for it. Those who find it unnecessary shouldn't be forced to pay for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So, given the conditions you describe, all of which I would suspect are possible given the digital technology that exists."
As far as I know that means no smart phone, (Satellite or cable connected phones being the only options), no mobile radio, in fact no radio receiver in any form (digital radio is also BBC)
OR a separate way of charging for this infrastructure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So, given the conditions you describe, all of which I would suspect are possible given the digital technology that exists.
As far as I know that means no smart phone, (Satellite or cable connected phones being the only options), no mobile radio, in fact no radio receiver in any form (digital radio is also BBC)
OR a separate way of charging for this infrastructure "
I can quite safely say that none of those things you mention, if removed, would affect me in any way. I don't have a smartphone and I only listen to the local commercial radio station in car rarely. I'm no Luddite, but believe what I have is sufficient. I'm sure there are many more in a similar position, but if not, I'll just take a refund and promise never to listen to, or watch anything, that I haven't paid for. Can I have my £145 back now?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So, given the conditions you describe, all of which I would suspect are possible given the digital technology that exists.
As far as I know that means no smart phone, (Satellite or cable connected phones being the only options), no mobile radio, in fact no radio receiver in any form (digital radio is also BBC)
OR a separate way of charging for this infrastructure "
I am not questioning any of your points put what about people like me who have to purchase third party equipment i.e. sat dish and box because we do not have bbc signal, when I phoned arguing my point with the license office they said it would cost too much to invest in equipment to our area, this also means I don't get radio digital yet I am to pay them when they don't want to invest in giving me a service. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So, given the conditions you describe, all of which I would suspect are possible given the digital technology that exists.
As far as I know that means no smart phone, (Satellite or cable connected phones being the only options), no mobile radio, in fact no radio receiver in any form (digital radio is also BBC)
OR a separate way of charging for this infrastructure
I am not questioning any of your points put what about people like me who have to purchase third party equipment i.e. sat dish and box because we do not have bbc signal, when I phoned arguing my point with the license office they said it would cost too much to invest in equipment to our area, this also means I don't get radio digital yet I am to pay them when they don't want to invest in giving me a service."
Another excellent example of why there should be a choice in paying for the licence - not everyone has, or wants access to all these services. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Once again, your post has to include insults and profanities to get your point across. The simple fact of the matter is that you want an entertainment channel, and you want everyone else to pay for what you want, without being willing to do anything extra yourself. I would suggest that you maybe pick up a book, do some voluntary work, or just go for a nice healthy walk, then you won't be so beholden to a multi-million pound television network to make your life slightly less unbearable."
Well when I started my original thread I didn't think it was going to end up as a two parter.
Strewth, you really did have to have the last word didn't you?
No I use insults and profanities because I can use all the reasoned argument I like but still prefer to swear. It doesn't show my learning is deficient, just that I have a range I can work into the threads to keep them spicy.
Anyway, So what you're saying is, you no longer want to pay for the bbc. And you're wondering if I'd be willing to take on your license fee and anyone elses who doesn't want to pay it?
What an utterly stupid argument. It doesn't even work on a hypothetical level. "If you had an annual income of £5bn would you take on everyone elses license fee if you love it so much?"
When If I had that much money I'd clearly be the proprietor of a multinational media company anyway and capable of buying government influence to destroy the national broadcaster for the benefit of my shareholders and detriment of viewers.
As you clearly don't have a telly as they're such banal and low brow pieces of kit why are you even arguing about this? Shouldn't you be reading a book instead in case I say fuck again?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Once again, your post has to include insults and profanities to get your point across. The simple fact of the matter is that you want an entertainment channel, and you want everyone else to pay for what you want, without being willing to do anything extra yourself. I would suggest that you maybe pick up a book, do some voluntary work, or just go for a nice healthy walk, then you won't be so beholden to a multi-million pound television network to make your life slightly less unbearable.
Well when I started my original thread I didn't think it was going to end up as a two parter.
Strewth, you really did have to have the last word didn't you?
No I use insults and profanities because I can use all the reasoned argument I like but still prefer to swear. It doesn't show my learning is deficient, just that I have a range I can work into the threads to keep them spicy.
Anyway, So what you're saying is, you no longer want to pay for the bbc. And you're wondering if I'd be willing to take on your license fee and anyone elses who doesn't want to pay it?
What an utterly stupid argument. It doesn't even work on a hypothetical level. "If you had an annual income of £5bn would you take on everyone elses license fee if you love it so much?"
When If I had that much money I'd clearly be the proprietor of a multinational media company anyway and capable of buying government influence to destroy the national broadcaster for the benefit of my shareholders and detriment of viewers.
As you clearly don't have a telly as they're such banal and low brow pieces of kit why are you even arguing about this? Shouldn't you be reading a book instead in case I say fuck again?
"
Thank you for your politely worded explanation. Of course I have a television, which I don't think is either banal or low brow - they can be an extremely effective way of absorbing knowledge and entertainment. I don't mind you saying fuck if you want to, I just don't see the need to make a clear and rational conflict of opinion more "spicy". In the same way I don't see the need for having the BBC exist as an advert-free entertainment medium employing forced payment. I'm surprised that the lack of freedom of choice is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For my smart phone I pay EE not the bbc and I buy music so don't listen to much radio and as for bbc radio mostly rubbish choice is all we want"
No you get your phone connection service from EE bit like if you have talktalk or sky phone service, and still pay line rental to BT for the cable to carry it.
The radio waves the phone works on are owned by the UK government and partitioned out via the BBC, so your phone won't work without the BBC! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can quite safely say that none of those things you mention, if removed, would affect me in any way. I don't have a smartphone and I only listen to the local commercial radio station in car rarely. I'm no Luddite, but believe what I have is sufficient. I'm sure there are many more in a similar position, but if not, I'll just take a refund and promise never to listen to, or watch anything, that I haven't paid for. Can I have my £145 back now? "
The local commercial radio station is using BBC provided bandwidth, but hell yeah law says if you don't watch live TV then you don't need a license... or do you watch live TV too so really do use the BBC just don't want to pay for it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For my smart phone I pay EE not the bbc and I buy music so don't listen to much radio and as for bbc radio mostly rubbish choice is all we want
No you get your phone connection service from EE bit like if you have talktalk or sky phone service, and still pay line rental to BT for the cable to carry it.
The radio waves the phone works on are owned by the UK government and partitioned out via the BBC, so your phone won't work without the BBC!"
I doubt that if the BBC failed to exist that mobile phones would become a thing of the past |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *am123Man
over a year ago
essex chelmsford |
"Once again, your post has to include insults and profanities to get your point across. The simple fact of the matter is that you want an entertainment channel, and you want everyone else to pay for what you want, without being willing to do anything extra yourself. I would suggest that you maybe pick up a book, do some voluntary work, or just go for a nice healthy walk, then you won't be so beholden to a multi-million pound television network to make your life slightly less unbearable.
Well when I started my original thread I didn't think it was going to end up as a two parter.
Strewth, you really did have to have the last word didn't you?
No I use insults and profanities because I can use all the reasoned argument I like but still prefer to swear. It doesn't show my learning is deficient, just that I have a range I can work into the threads to keep them spicy.
Anyway, So what you're saying is, you no longer want to pay for the bbc. And you're wondering if I'd be willing to take on your license fee and anyone elses who doesn't want to pay it?
What an utterly stupid argument. It doesn't even work on a hypothetical level. "If you had an annual income of £5bn would you take on everyone elses license fee if you love it so much?"
When If I had that much money I'd clearly be the proprietor of a multinational media company anyway and capable of buying government influence to destroy the national broadcaster for the benefit of my shareholders and detriment of viewers.
As you clearly don't have a telly as they're such banal and low brow pieces of kit why are you even arguing about this? Shouldn't you be reading a book instead in case I say fuck again?
Thank you for your politely worded explanation. Of course I have a television, which I don't think is either banal or low brow - they can be an extremely effective way of absorbing knowledge and entertainment. I don't mind you saying fuck if you want to, I just don't see the need to make a clear and rational conflict of opinion more "spicy". In the same way I don't see the need for having the BBC exist as an advert-free entertainment medium employing forced payment. I'm surprised that the lack of freedom of choice is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. "
who needs a tv radio or any media you two are great entertainment   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Freedom of choice is good. And you have it. Freedom to pay for the license fee and for sky. It's not my fault if you want to pay sky for channels you already get for free. As I pointed out in the last thread if we all wanted to opt out of paying the bits of our taxes we claim we never use then the NHS would fail faster than its failing already, every road would have a toll booth on it and our emergency services would be privately run by insurance firms.
People latch onto this subject because as someone in the last thread said it's seen as an easy target for those who think they're sockin' it to the man by not paying. They're not being anarchists, just dicks.
If all you want is safe tv and radio thats approved by focus groups and advertisers then fine. No risks ever taken, nothing truly original ever made, no diversity at all then fine. But don't pretend you're doing it to support freedom of choice, you're just being tight and trying to get one over on the big bad state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Think some people should realise that you need a license to watch any tv programme and not just BBC - this includes ITV, Channel 4 etc and even satellite tv channels even if they are controlled from outwith the Uk.
So if the BBC shut down tomorrow you would still need a license if you continue to watch the other channels.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I can quite safely say that none of those things you mention, if removed, would affect me in any way. I don't have a smartphone and I only listen to the local commercial radio station in car rarely. I'm no Luddite, but believe what I have is sufficient. I'm sure there are many more in a similar position, but if not, I'll just take a refund and promise never to listen to, or watch anything, that I haven't paid for. Can I have my £145 back now?
The local commercial radio station is using BBC provided bandwidth, but hell yeah law says if you don't watch live TV then you don't need a license... or do you watch live TV too so really do use the BBC just don't want to pay for it?"
I do watch live tv and I do watch some stuff on the BBC, because it's there and I pay for it. If it wasn't there and I didn't have to pay for it, I wouldn't miss it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can quite safely say that none of those things you mention, if removed, would affect me in any way. I don't have a smartphone and I only listen to the local commercial radio station in car rarely. I'm no Luddite, but believe what I have is sufficient. I'm sure there are many more in a similar position, but if not, I'll just take a refund and promise never to listen to, or watch anything, that I haven't paid for. Can I have my £145 back now?
The local commercial radio station is using BBC provided bandwidth, but hell yeah law says if you don't watch live TV then you don't need a license... or do you watch live TV too so really do use the BBC just don't want to pay for it?
I do watch live tv and I do watch some stuff on the BBC, because it's there and I pay for it. If it wasn't there and I didn't have to pay for it, I wouldn't miss it."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Freedom of choice is good. And you have it. Freedom to pay for the license fee and for sky. It's not my fault if you want to pay sky for channels you already get for free. As I pointed out in the last thread if we all wanted to opt out of paying the bits of our taxes we claim we never use then the NHS would fail faster than its failing already, every road would have a toll booth on it and our emergency services would be privately run by insurance firms.
People latch onto this subject because as someone in the last thread said it's seen as an easy target for those who think they're sockin' it to the man by not paying. They're not being anarchists, just dicks.
If all you want is safe tv and radio thats approved by focus groups and advertisers then fine. No risks ever taken, nothing truly original ever made, no diversity at all then fine. But don't pretend you're doing it to support freedom of choice, you're just being tight and trying to get one over on the big bad state. "
Again, comparing the NHS, which saves lives, to the BBC which is an entertainment medium, is just ridiculous. Do you really not see the difference between the two? And what's wrong with being "tight" as you so eloquently put it? Money is in short supply if you hadn't noticed - world wide recession and all that. Doesn't your BBC news give you those facts? I pay for it, so will continue to watch whatever I like on it, which isn't much. If I no longer legally have to pay for it under threat of the dire punishment of not being able to watch it, then I can manage that fairly easily. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Freedom of choice is good. And you have it. Freedom to pay for the license fee and for sky. It's not my fault if you want to pay sky for channels you already get for free. As I pointed out in the last thread if we all wanted to opt out of paying the bits of our taxes we claim we never use then the NHS would fail faster than its failing already, every road would have a toll booth on it and our emergency services would be privately run by insurance firms.
People latch onto this subject because as someone in the last thread said it's seen as an easy target for those who think they're sockin' it to the man by not paying. They're not being anarchists, just dicks.
If all you want is safe tv and radio thats approved by focus groups and advertisers then fine. No risks ever taken, nothing truly original ever made, no diversity at all then fine. But don't pretend you're doing it to support freedom of choice, you're just being tight and trying to get one over on the big bad state. "
well i have never used the fire brigade for anything ever, can i stop paying until i need them and then just pay for what i use please?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Fine. Let's call it Television Excise Duty and make the BBC the state run television network. Then The TV licence is a licence for your television set and not for the BBC.
I mean, that's what we really have now all bar the actual division of licence money from the BBC corporation. Whitehall's hands are so far up the BBC they have been working the mouth for years.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For my smart phone I pay EE not the bbc and I buy music so don't listen to much radio and as for bbc radio mostly rubbish choice is all we want
No you get your phone connection service from EE bit like if you have talktalk or sky phone service, and still pay line rental to BT for the cable to carry it.
The radio waves the phone works on are owned by the UK government and partitioned out via the BBC, so your phone won't work without the BBC!"
We have talktalk and BT line rental is included in the bill like you say. But we don't then get another seperate bill off BT. So your point is futile and the example you gave is ridiculous.
As For phones not working if there was no BBC is making a point out of context as mobile companies pay the government billions for bandwidth. Much more than what the license fee generates.
BBC should generate it's revenue just like every other TV channel and should not be forced on people who could live without it.
Die hard Auntie fans want everyone else to chip in to an over rated, out dated and run of the mill entertainment outlet just because they like the crap they broadcast.
Freedom of choice is not an option in this country. It's a right. Geddit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
the bbc is great for the remit that it has....
remember that have to do a lot of the things that commercial broadcasters wont touch
for example... those natural history documentries... they cost money
those childrens programmes... again cost money
news reporting and local coverage... again cost money....
local radio... specialist subjects.... money money money...
remember that a lot of the stuff you see on sky started off elsewhere and sky outbid them
24..... bbc2
friends.... channel 4
simpsons.... channel 4
house... channel 4
prison break... channel 5
lost... channel 4
and that is without even mentioning sport.....
you can get into a bidding war... or you can try and get moneys worth for the money you are getting.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I do watch live tv and I do watch some stuff on the BBC, because it's there and I pay for it. If it wasn't there and I didn't have to pay for it, I wouldn't miss it."
well don't watch anything broadcast by radio, and you don't have to pay... the bit you seem to not understand is the infrastructure that allows you to watch ITV or any other commercial channel is included in the TV license.
As someone else pointed out we could call it television excise duty (TED) lets say we carry over all the collection / policing / admin costs to a new agency called TED probably cost you about £200 for the license and have no programs on it.... happy now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I do watch live tv and I do watch some stuff on the BBC, because it's there and I pay for it. If it wasn't there and I didn't have to pay for it, I wouldn't miss it.
well don't watch anything broadcast by radio, and you don't have to pay... the bit you seem to not understand is the infrastructure that allows you to watch ITV or any other commercial channel is included in the TV license.
As someone else pointed out we could call it television excise duty (TED) lets say we carry over all the collection / policing / admin costs to a new agency called TED probably cost you about £200 for the license and have no programs on it.... happy now?"
Why would I be "happy" with a completely hypothetical situation? Your TED would be an option for the terminally stupid, but the option of not paying at all is also viable if the BBC were advert-funded. A tax is a tax, no matter how you dress it. I really don't understand why you're so joyously happy to pay out your hard-earned money when it's conceivably not necessary. Would a few advert breaks during a programme really be that disastrous to your life? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As For phones not working if there was no BBC is making a point out of context as mobile companies pay the government billions for bandwidth. Much more than what the license fee generates. "
BUT the free space on the radio spectrum the Government sold for Billions WAS used by the 5 TV channels we had when it was sold...
THE BBC and your license fees paid for the digitisation of TV broadcasts to make the bandwidth available...
So yes we are getting ripped off but not by the BBC, if things were all equal then those billions should be given to the BBC to make TV and Radio available (that's ALL channels and all Radio Stations) without the need to ever charge a license fee.
There was some concession on the part of the Government, in that the extra income from the new channels available due to the Digitisation does subsidise the BBC and repays some of the costs incurred in creating Digital, and also keeps the license fee pretty static at the moment despite the massive increase in service...
SO bottom line is when you watch E4, Dave, BBC or any other TV channel your TV license fee paid for it to be broadcast, when you use your mobile it's only possible because the BBC cleared the space on the airwaves to allow it to happen.
I watch very little on BBC1, 2, 3, or 4 but everything I do watch on any Freeview channel is only available because of the BBC making it available.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
the bit you seem to not understand is the infrastructure that allows you to watch ITV or any other commercial channel is included in the TV license.
That is untrue other channels and mobile phones have nothing to do with bbc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" the bit you seem to not understand is the infrastructure that allows you to watch ITV or any other commercial channel is included in the TV license.
That is untrue other channels and mobile phones have nothing to do with bbc"
I am sorry I have not explained it clearly enough for many to understand, and I am giving up...
Bottom line is Digital TV was not created to give you more channels it was created to use LESS bandwidth so that some could be sold off for phones.
The BBC and your license fees paid for the infrastructure for digital TV, so without them there would be no national broadcasting of any channel, yes the BBC charges ITV and the rest for using it, but you can't charge for use until it's built. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Again, comparing the NHS, which saves lives, to the BBC which is an entertainment medium, is just ridiculous. Do you really not see the difference between the two? And what's wrong with being "tight" as you so eloquently put it? Money is in short supply if you hadn't noticed - world wide recession and all that. Doesn't your BBC news give you those facts? I pay for it, so will continue to watch whatever I like on it, which isn't much. If I no longer legally have to pay for it under threat of the dire punishment of not being able to watch it, then I can manage that fairly easily."
Comparing the NHS to the BBC is very apt if you leave out the actual service they provide. It's you who doesn't see that so I'll spell it out to you.
Both are state funded through taxes. Both have movements in government pushing to scrap the compulsory contributions and privatise, and both have commercial alternatives. And both the alternatives cost considerably more while providing less. Arguably both are also currently being hamstrung by the government to make them ripe for eventual breakup.
And I'm well aware of the financial difficulties, as I also already pointed out I can tell the difference between £140 for the beeb and £255 for Sky.
I'm sure it was explained before but here goes, if the BBC were to take on adverts then to get that revenue on a competitive market they have to stop commissioning things people might not watch to please the advertisers. So back to my original point on Ant n fucking Dec a bazillion times over.
As this is clearly going round in circles now, I'm out.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For my smart phone I pay EE not the bbc and I buy music so don't listen to much radio and as for bbc radio mostly rubbish choice is all we want
No you get your phone connection service from EE bit like if you have talktalk or sky phone service, and still pay line rental to BT for the cable to carry it.
The radio waves the phone works on are owned by the UK government and partitioned out via the BBC, so your phone won't work without the BBC!"
You learn something new every day: I didn't know that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once again, your post has to include insults and profanities to get your point across. The simple fact of the matter is that you want an entertainment channel, and you want everyone else to pay for what you want, without being willing to do anything extra yourself. I would suggest that you maybe pick up a book, do some voluntary work, or just go for a nice healthy walk, then you won't be so beholden to a multi-million pound television network to make your life slightly less unbearable.
Well when I started my original thread I didn't think it was going to end up as a two parter.
Strewth, you really did have to have the last word didn't you?
No I use insults and profanities because I can use all the reasoned argument I like but still prefer to swear. It doesn't show my learning is deficient, just that I have a range I can work into the threads to keep them spicy.
Anyway, So what you're saying is, you no longer want to pay for the bbc. And you're wondering if I'd be willing to take on your license fee and anyone elses who doesn't want to pay it?
What an utterly stupid argument. It doesn't even work on a hypothetical level. "If you had an annual income of £5bn would you take on everyone elses license fee if you love it so much?"
When If I had that much money I'd clearly be the proprietor of a multinational media company anyway and capable of buying government influence to destroy the national broadcaster for the benefit of my shareholders and detriment of viewers.
As you clearly don't have a telly as they're such banal and low brow pieces of kit why are you even arguing about this? Shouldn't you be reading a book instead in case I say fuck again?
Thank you for your politely worded explanation. Of course I have a television, which I don't think is either banal or low brow - they can be an extremely effective way of absorbing knowledge and entertainment. I don't mind you saying fuck if you want to, I just don't see the need to make a clear and rational conflict of opinion more "spicy". In the same way I don't see the need for having the BBC exist as an advert-free entertainment medium employing forced payment. I'm surprised that the lack of freedom of choice is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. who needs a tv radio or any media you two are great entertainment "
 agreed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" the bit you seem to not understand is the infrastructure that allows you to watch ITV or any other commercial channel is included in the TV license.
That is untrue other channels and mobile phones have nothing to do with bbc
I am sorry I have not explained it clearly enough for many to understand, and I am giving up...
Bottom line is Digital TV was not created to give you more channels it was created to use LESS bandwidth so that some could be sold off for phones.
The BBC and your license fees paid for the infrastructure for digital TV, so without them there would be no national broadcasting of any channel, yes the BBC charges ITV and the rest for using it, but you can't charge for use until it's built."
Yes the infrustructer which does not reach tens of thousands of homes who then have to purchase third party equipment. BBC do not own the bandwidths it is owned by the government any individual or company can try to purchase bandwidth and is not owned by the BBC  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
