Tv licence dilemna

[Machpoint005]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Well that's one opinion to which you are entitled. If you like being mugged over by yet another bill when tv companies in general support themselves and one doesn't then good luck to you. I don't and think they should self support as others do and indeed as most individuals have to.

The "TV" licence fee is worth it for Radio 3 and Radio 4 (without any telly at all) and neither of them has advertising -- long may it so continue.

I'm not all that mithered about ads on TV, since the Beeb already has incessant trailers and ten-minute fillers at the end of programmes anyway.

[Jerra]

5 hours ago, Robbo said:

Why doesn't Channel4 get any of the license money?

Last time I watch it (admittedly a while ago) it seemed to be carrying adverts which I assume finance it.  Thank god there is somewhere that makes half reasonable programmes (Blue Planet 2 springs to mind) and isn't interrupted every few minutes by adverts for things I haven't the slightest interest in.

[Robbo]

36 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Last time I watch it (admittedly a while ago) it seemed to be carrying adverts which I assume finance it.  Thank god there is somewhere that makes half reasonable programmes (Blue Planet 2 springs to mind) and isn't interrupted every few minutes by adverts for things I haven't the slightest interest in.

It is funded by adverts, but it is public owned like the BBC and has obligations on its content just like the BBC.  You could ask is this fair?  Why should one channel be funded by the license fee, but the other have to be funded by adverts but still be restricted on its content?   Blue Planet is good, but it is a commercial success and could be funded with the license fee just by exports alone.   The BBC should be making content that would not be commercially successful. 

 

There has been some good excellent BBC programs made, but the content is not made available by the BBC!   I need a licence to view anything on iPlayer but there is no past content - why is past content not been made to the license payers who funded the content?  If I want to watch anything from it’s past I need to get it from a commercial supplier like Netflix, but if I wanted to watch any channel 4 content it is usually on All4.

 

Just done a search for Blue Planet on iplayer,  no episodes,there is two episodes from Planet Earth 2.  Netflix has 11 episodes from Planet Earth, 6 from Planet Earth 2 and 6 from Blue Planet as well as other BBC Earth series’s.  Why is Netflix providing a better service on BBC content than the BBC????

Edited July 17, 2018 by Robbo

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Why should one channel be funded by the license fee, but the other have to be funded by adverts but still be restricted on its content? 

For me two reasons.

 

One to provided a blessed haven away from adverts.

 

Two because those setting it up and in charge are/were happy to have the commercial element.

[Laurie Booth]

8 hours ago, Robbo said:

Not if you don't watch broadcast TV it isn't!   I find I never watch any broadcast TV now and totally stream...

So you don't watch or listen to any BBC productions?

[Laurie Booth]

7 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Completely disagree " The unique way we are funded " Cows droppings!! Its beyond antiquated and they should pay their way like the rest of us and the independent channels do.

But we do pay to watch independent channels. The goods they advertise would be a lot cheaper if they did not advertise,

[Robbo]

1 minute ago, Laurie.Booth said:

So you don't watch or listen to any BBC productions?

Via broadcast TV no, via streaming yes.   Currently watching Ab. Fab. via Netflix.

[Tunnelman51]

Six years ago, when everything went digital, my old telly sat in the corner unable to receive anything.  I never bothered getting a digibox or any of that palaver.

 

Several weeks went by, during which time I was having a life- you know, doing stuff, listening to the radio, reading etc.  I came to realise that I hadn't really missed it.

 

Then the annual reminder for the licence turned up in the post. It was at this point that I questioned the economics of forking out for something that I didn't use, so I duly went online to the licensing website and told them I don't watch telly, and haven't got one anymore 

Thank you for informing us they said, you can expect a visit from us to check this out.  As I said, this was six years ago, and I have never seen a soul with a clipboard, or detector van outside, no harassment, nothing.   Other than renewing my 'sorn' declaration every two years online, that's the only contact that I've had with them.  Lets hope it continues......

[Laurie Booth]

6 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Via broadcast TV no, via streaming yes.   Currently watching Ab. Fab. via Netflix.

Which were paid for with the TV licence.

[mrsmelly]

17 minutes ago, Laurie.Booth said:

But we do pay to watch independent channels. The goods they advertise would be a lot cheaper if they did not advertise,

But then again we have a choice wether or not to buy advertised products. We have no choice wether or not to buy an antiquated rip off tv licence even if we only ever watch independent tv.

[Laurie Booth]

Just now, mrsmelly said:

But then again we have a choice wether or not to buy advertised products. We have no choice wether or not to buy an antiquated rip off tv licence even if we only ever watch independent tv.

I bet you have watched and listened to a lot of BBC productions.

[Robbo]

Just now, Laurie.Booth said:

Which were paid for with the TV licence.

 So why can’t I stream the content via iPlayer?  Why do I have to pay another commercial enterprise to view past BBC content?   What benefit does the license give me now when I can’t even view the BBC programs I want to watch from BBC’s streaming service?   Netflix has some good original content that it produces, guess what I can even watch it on Netflix!

[Laurie Booth]

1 minute ago, Robbo said:

 So why can’t I stream the content via iPlayer?  Why do I have to pay another commercial enterprise to view past BBC content?   What benefit does the license give me now when I can’t even view the BBC programs I want to watch from BBC’s streaming service?   Netflix has some good original content that it produces, guess what I can even watch it on Netflix!

Because they have sold old programs to commercial stations to reduce the licence fee.

[Robbo]

Just now, Laurie.Booth said:

Because they have sold old programs to commercial stations to reduce the licence fee.

 

So let’s compare, the license fee gives you current BBC content which is usually poor nowadays and the ability to watch other channels full of adverts.

 

Netflix is cheaper, commercial free, has more content and even producing some decent content itself, as well as a good back catalogue from companies like the BBC.

 

you can see why more people are turning to streaming only services such as Netflix.

[Laurie Booth]

3 minutes ago, Robbo said:

 

So let’s compare, the license fee gives you current BBC content which is usually poor nowadays and the ability to watch other channels full of adverts.

 

Netflix is cheaper, commercial free, has more content and even producing some decent content itself, as well as a good back catalogue from companies like the BBC.

 

you can see why more people are turning to streaming only services such as Netflix.

Netflix shares plunged by more than 14% in after-hours trade on Monday, after the firm reported disappointing subscriber growth.

Netflix said it added 5.2 million subscribers in the three months to the end of June, the same number it did during the period last year.

The streaming service had forecast growth of 6.2 million.

The decline in share price follows a successful run for the stock, which had roughly doubled so far this year.

The firm's shares ended Monday's trading session at about $400, but tumbled by 14% after the market closed as investors digested the firm's quarterly results.

 

[Robbo]

20 minutes ago, Laurie.Booth said:

Netflix shares plunged by more than 14% in after-hours trade on Monday, after the firm reported disappointing subscriber growth.

Netflix said it added 5.2 million subscribers in the three months to the end of June, the same number it did during the period last year.

The streaming service had forecast growth of 6.2 million.

The decline in share price follows a successful run for the stock, which had roughly doubled so far this year.

The firm's shares ended Monday's trading session at about $400, but tumbled by 14% after the market closed as investors digested the firm's quarterly results.

 

Netflix has around 125m subscribers, which is not bad for something that’s only been going for less than 7 years.  It’s the future of TV, the BBC in it’s current form of streaming service will only get left behind if it doesn’t change.   Looking at Netflix stocks over the past year and it’s doubled, the 14% it lost recently is basically worth what it was a month ago.  

Edited July 17, 2018 by Robbo

[MtB]

Never mind TV, I am DELIGHTED we have BBC radio with no adverts. 

 

If BBC radio had to fund itself by flogging us tat like the commercial radio stations, we would not have any of the three best BBC stations R3, R4 and R6.

[Laurie Booth]

16 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Netflix has around 125m subscribers, which is not bad for something that’s only been going for less than 7 years.  It’s the future of TV, the BBC in it’s current form of streaming service will only get left behind if it doesn’t change.   Looking at Netflix stocks over the past year and it’s doubled, the 14% it lost recently is basically worth what it was a month ago.  

So I can get Netflix via my TV aerial ?

 

[MtB]

Just now, Laurie.Booth said:

So I can get Netflix via my TV aerial ?

 

 

I thought it could only be received by the under 25s.

[LadyG]

I gave not had a licence off and on for over ten years, the letters used to be draconian but last time I stopped watching, I got a phone call,   and was asked a few questions, no particular problem. I fill a form in every so often.

[rusty69]

Do you need a license for the beeb website? 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44862598

[Athy]

7 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Never mind TV, I am DELIGHTED we have BBC radio with no adverts. 

 

If BBC radio had to fund itself by flogging us tat like the commercial radio stations, we would not have any of the three best BBC stations R3, R4 and R6.

Precisely.

Lest we forget, the BBC does not provide just two good quality, advert-free telly stations. It also provides eight advert-free national radio stations, whose programming includes things such as plays, classical music and ball-by-ball test cricket commentary which are not available on other stations (or in most of the world for that matter); numerous local radio stations; and, in the World Service, a source of fair and honest reporting beamed at countries whose own networks do not offer such a service. Not bad for under £3 a week, is it?

   Their radio coverage goes far beyond the usual commercial format of play a few records, run an advert and give a one-minute newscast every hour. As a former commercial radio presenter myself I recognise that the commercial format has its place, but it's the cheap and easy option - a path which the BBC resolutely refuses to take. The only merit of an advert on T.V. is that it provides a chance to put the kettle on/ pour beer/ nip upstairs to the office to catch up with CWDF on the computer, and perhaps that it offers the chance to hear a decent piece of music, such as Ray Charles' 'Mess Around' (don't know what that advertises) or The Just Brothers' 'Sliced Tomatoes' (for B&Q).

[Robbo]

44 minutes ago, Athy said:

Precisely.

Lest we forget, the BBC does not provide just two good quality, advert-free telly stations. It also provides eight advert-free national radio stations, whose programming includes things such as plays, classical music and ball-by-ball test cricket commentary which are not available on other stations (or in most of the world for that matter); numerous local radio stations; and, in the World Service, a source of fair and honest reporting beamed at countries whose own networks do not offer such a service. Not bad for under £3 a week, is it?

   Their radio coverage goes far beyond the usual commercial format of play a few records, run an advert and give a one-minute newscast every hour. As a former commercial radio presenter myself I recognise that the commercial format has its place, but it's the cheap and easy option - a path which the BBC resolutely refuses to take. The only merit of an advert on T.V. is that it provides a chance to put the kettle on/ pour beer/ nip upstairs to the office to catch up with CWDF on the computer, and perhaps that it offers the chance to hear a decent piece of music, such as Ray Charles' 'Mess Around' (don't know what that advertises) or The Just Brothers' 'Sliced Tomatoes' (for B&Q).

I think podcasts are the future of radio, there’s nothing on traditional radio I listen too, it’s 100% podcast related.  Even tho majority are commercial related the content can be avery specific area which you can’t get from traditional radio as the content is usually dumbed down for the average person.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Robbo

[Robbo]

50 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Do you need a license for the beeb website? 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44862598

If that article is correct and that UK Channels has reduced it spending on content over the last 20 years by 28% then it makes total sense looking at the dreval that is now served.   It’s no wonder why services such as Netflix are taking off.

[rusty69]

I luv the bbc. Prime time Saturday evening entertainment still............. 

Dads Army.