Bbc tv

[Less]

Originally Posted by Jim Procter

I love the BBC no adverts and quality programmes.The only programme we watch on ITV is Corry,

I love your input, always ready to put forward an in depth senile point of view, it must be wonderful to express such a point of view without fear of consequences.

[Less]

Originally Posted by accyman

not one to miss out on an opportunity and thankyou for lining this up for me

%95 of people dont give a stuff about the BBC and any that do think they do are too stupid to understand the complexity of the system

The system has a tradition of complications, the first of which was can we allow people to broadcast without us being in charge?
That came back with a great big political NO.
The next was if we allow them to broadcast do we allow it to be without us being in charge?
The answer was NO.
They invented a system of control the licence, you can listen if you buy a licence, you can experiment, if you buy a licence.
They have used needing a licence to hold back the British public from experimenting with radio waves not only in broadcasting but with metal detectors, ultra sound, micro waves, well sh'ite, there's a whole spectrum out there that without their interference many people could have taken advantage of.
Freedom? We aren't allowed freedom to develop ideas for our nation, because we are stuck with licencing laws.

[accyman]

a big part of the BBC getting away with conning the british public is tha they allegedly provide educational programs for schools which is a complete and utter lie

the majority of schools and pupils do their homework on the internet or via information gathered from the internet.Classes use computers and other devices all of which get information etc from teh internet NOT the BBC

america has 2 or 3 BBC channels with the same shows we watch and i dont see the americans been made to pay a license fee .The BBC has to rely on adverts and is propped up by the UK tax gained from the UK people

no one has to pay for the BBC if they dont want it in the entire world except the UK

we dont get a choice

[Less]

Tips for Avoiding TVL/BBC harassment

Interesting?

[accyman]

Originally Posted by Less

Tips for Avoiding TVL/BBC harassment

Interesting?

dont pay

when they turn up slam the door in their face and go back to watching TV

they rely on you admitting you have a tv they can not tell if you have one or not

i got a letter the other day asking me to confirm i didnt require a tv license

the silly billys .....if i wanted one i would have one

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by accyman

a big part of the BBC getting away with conning the british public is tha they allegedly provide educational programs for schools which is a complete and utter lie

You got evidence for this?

I have, to prove you wrong... BBC Bitesize - Home

Originally Posted by accyman

the majority of schools and pupils do their homework on the internet or via information gathered from the internet.Classes use computers and other devices all of which get information etc from teh internet NOT the BBC

Schools do homework??? Fail to see why this argument is relevant to an argument about a licence fee,

Originally Posted by accyman

america has 2 or 3 BBC channels with the same shows we watch and i dont see the americans been made to pay a license fee .The BBC has to rely on adverts and is propped up by the UK tax gained from the UK people

Hmm...the US pays through the nose..most of the quality BBC stuff is on pay per view channels...US sales are where the BBC makes 'real money'

Originally Posted by accyman

no one has to pay for the BBC if they dont want it in the entire world except the UK

*sigh* £145 a year for news, music, TV, radio, educational websites, T

Originally Posted by accyman

a big part of the BBC getting away with conning the british public is tha they allegedly provide educational programs for schools which is a complete and utter lie

Originally Posted by accyman

no one has to pay for the BBC if they dont want it in the entire world except the UK

*sigh*old redundant argument. You get around 7 BBC channels, 7 radio channels, numerous local radio channels, internet radio and TV, education and history channels, umpteen associated research links

Originally Posted by accyman

we dont get a choice

Be careful what you wish for...Daily Mail/Fox news/Sky News etc..etc...etc.

[Barrie Yates]

Originally Posted by Less

Tips for Avoiding TVL/BBC harassment

Interesting?

A pity that so many residents of Hyndburn have not read this or used some common sense, according to the number detailed in the Observer who are fined each week.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I pay my TV licence because I do not wish to break the law. I suppose that if you work it out on a daily basis it is not a lot of money(especially if you also have some form of paid TV...which works out much more expensive).
I do not watch a lot of TV, but my other half does. You have to pay for the stuff you use.
We use it...we pay for it. Itis as simple as that.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I pay my TV licence because I do not wish to break the law. I suppose that if you work it out on a daily basis it is not a lot of money(especially if you also have some form of paid TV...which works out much more expensive).
I do not watch a lot of TV, but my other half does. You have to pay for the stuff you use.
We use it...we pay for it. Itis as simple as that.

No it isn't as simple as that,

we are supposedly a free Country in other 'free Countries'and indeed in 'unfree Countries', you do not have an oppressive, state supported communications facility attempting to control the population by restricting which of us can or cannot use information that is freely transmitted, elsewhere.

If the BBC restriction was buy a licence or else don't watch or listen to BBC broadcasts then fair enough, the licence fee pays for the Beeb.

The problem is, Buy a licence or we (the Governing body) will not allow you to use any broadcasting company no matter how it's funded.

It is long past the time that the way the BBC is funded was brought up to date to allow all the freedom to choose what they watch or listen to, the BBC and Government should not be in discussion to bring in even more restricting laws that will mean the WWW will also be licensed by them.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee (the guy that started the WWW) doesn't think such restrictions to be a good idea either:-

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ternet-freedom

[Margaret Pilkington]

no Less that isn't what I meant.
Maybe I did not explain myself very well(no change there then).
I meant that to stay inside the law we have to pay for what we use....and I was under the impression(from long ago) that the licence was not FOR the BBC...it was to receive ANY telecommunication over the airwaves from which ever broadcaster was sending a signal.

I agree that the BBC should look at the way it funds the programmes that it makes.
Nowhere have I said that restrictions on the internet are a good idea either...they are not.

All freedoms have responsibilities attached to them.......would you feel happier if you thought that the licence fee was divided amongs all the broadcasters regardless of how they made their money(I am not being fly here...I am just asking a question)?
Maybe the paid for subscription services could have some sort of tax levied on them too.
Maybe the BBC should become a subscription only service...or maybe it should become commercial and sell advertising space.
I really don't know what the answer is...but until something better is decided then I will continue to cough up my TV licence money to save me from breaking the law(and that is what I was referring to when I said it was 'simple' - not that the licence fee dilemma was simple).

[accyman]

we live in an age where we have a choice of hundreds of TV channels that get by on their own it is ridiculous that one company especially a company with the BBC's track record be given the special treatment it is

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by accyman

we live in an age where we have a choice of hundreds of TV channels that get by on their own it is ridiculous that one company especially a company with the BBC's track record be given the special treatment it is

yes, we do. But my understanding is that we pay the licence to receive a radio/TV signal from anyone who broadcasts.....not that we pay the licence fee for just the BBC.

The licence fee has become politicised...it is something that politicians fight and argue over. Much of this is because it has not moved with the technology. It has not evolved.

I am sure that if you drive on the roads you pay road tax.....this money is not spent on the roads...it just goes into government coffers.
If you thought that all companies who broadcast on the airwaves would that make you feel happier to pay it?
If they changed the name of it from TV licence to something like 'licence to receive Broadcasts' would that make you feel better about it. And again, I am just asking the question - not being 'fly' or smart alecky.


I am sure much of the furore about the TV licence is really that people are anti BBC....and that is their right.......but as far as I am aware the TV licence is to receive broadcasts from ANY broadcaster.
Now I am sure that if I am wrong in this concept there will be someone along to tell me that it is not so.
That the licence fee funds the BBC and no other broadcaster is a totally different matter.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

no Less that isn't what I meant.
Maybe I did not explain myself very well(no change there then).
I meant that to stay inside the law we have to pay for what we use....and I was under the impression(from long ago) that the licence was not FOR the BBC...it was to receive ANY telecommunication over the airwaves from which ever broadcaster was sending a signal.

I agree that the BBC should look at the way it funds the programmes that it makes.
Nowhere have I said that restrictions on the internet are a good idea either...they are not.

All freedoms have responsibilities attached to them.......would you feel happier if you thought that the licence fee was divided amongs all the broadcasters regardless of how they made their money(I am not being fly here...I am just asking a question)?
Maybe the paid for subscription services could have some sort of tax levied on them too.
Maybe the BBC should become a subscription only service...or maybe it should become commercial and sell advertising space.
I really don't know what the answer is...but until something better is decided then I will continue to cough up my TV licence money to save me from breaking the law(and that is what I was referring to when I said it was 'simple' - not that the licence fee dilemma was simple).

You are quite correct, we do pay the licence fee to receive all transmissions, it begs the question...

...Why should we?

It is a restriction on, not a benefit to our freedoms.

As I said in the previous post:-

If the BBC restriction was buy a licence or else don't watch or listen to BBC broadcasts then fair enough, the licence fee pays for the Beeb.

The problem is, Buy a licence or we (the Governing body) will not allow you to use any broadcasting company no matter how it's funded.

The whole set up is wrong and when they get their hands on the internet it will get worse.

None of us knew 10 years ago the advances that would sweep through our communications capabilities, they have given us advantages that should be open to us all.
Of course they need to be paid for, it should however be our choice as to how and which services we wish to pay for.

The time is now remove the restrictive practices of the licence fee, put into place a modern system of funding the BBC.

To do that would take a brave and forward thinking Government, unfortunately instead of removing restrictions our Government in partnership with the BBC are no doubt as we speak making plans to have even more restrictive laws covering transmissions and also the internet.

They, like us, don't know where the internet or any other form of communications will be in another 10 years, so the will be relying on the predictions of 'top men', to foresee how our future should be controlled. These men aren't engineers at the cutting edge of technology, they will be legal eagles dedicated to tying everything to what will appear to be new and simplified edicts no doubt designed not just to cover the next 10 years but any future advances that they consider needs control.

Do away with the restrictions and we do away with the need for a licence to be policed, we do away with local courts being tied to prosecute people over a useless piece of paper.

The future has promise of many, many, more fascinated advances being made for the advancement of communications of every kind, China was criticised when it tried to stop it's people using the internet, I think they have since learnt what a big mistake that was!

It's about time our restrictions were recognised and removed, perhaps we should ask Google for help?

Why Google Quit China?and Why It?s Heading Back - The Atlantic

[Margaret Pilkington]

Less, it is a sort of tax...but it is a hypothecated tax(unlike the Road Fund Licence)...that means that where it goes and what it funds is regulated by the Government.

I get what you are saying, but I don't have the answers.
I agree that criminalising people because they do not have a licence to receive broadcasts is daft and expensivbe daft at that...but laws are laws.
You might as well say let's not bother policing illegal drug use(and the police would pat you on the back and whole heartedly agree)...but until the law is changed that is what it is.
I think you are right in saying that other methods of funding the BBC should be sought...and I have said that in previous posts too......it is HOW to do this that is the bone of contention.
Nothing will change until some government decides that there is a better way to obtain money for communication services...because that is what we are talking about...rather than just a TV licence.

I am not sure how the government would restrict the use of technology for those who decide not to pay what is, a tax.

After all, they are using some of the TV licence fee to ensure that broadband is improved and available to the larger community.
It is in their interests to have people online...they are observable online and as such (maybe) easier to keep tabs on.
Thank you for the link to that article. It is very interesting

[Less]

I do not suggest nor would I, that people break the law by ignoring their TV licence.
That does not however mean we agree with the fact that that we are forced to pay it.
I just think we started with a very thin wedge and over the years they are applying more and more force to improve the wedge, that licence is bad enough, it ought to be revoked if we ignore it just because it was set in place long before any of us were born doesn't make it right.
What they plan for our future and our freedom on the Internet will be even worse.