BBC

[pez]

Maybe I'm really stupid, but could someone please explain to me who is paying for the BBC website which the whole world can use - is it the funded by the TV licence fees?

And now they're putting stuff on YouTube?

So why the heck should I pay for the TV licence?

[edit] Dude, licence fee goes to their radio stations too. I HATE RADIO. I NEVER LISTEN TO IT. PUT ADVERTS ON THE RADIO AND STOP CHARGING ME. jkasdasfhksalfhjkas Or set up a separate frigging radio licence or whatever.

Comments

[fic-faery.livejournal.com]

If you google it, you can actually see a breakdown of exactly where each cent of your tv licence fee goes. The websites actually get a decent sized chunk. But a lot of the streaming stuff on the websites are coded so that only people in the UK can view them.

It makes me sad that I can't see Top Gear, but now that you've reminded me that the sites are funded through licence fees, I guess I don't feel so bad. I'll just stick to complaining about Fox and Toonami being limited to US users.

[yuki-scorpio.livejournal.com]

It doesn't help making me want to pay for it, though - if I can see it as long as I'm in the UK, then why bother?

They could at least make people login using their licence numbers or something.

[fic-faery.livejournal.com]

Yeah good point. But they'll probably use their mandate as an excuse since it's probably something like supplying UK information and entertainment to the people of the UK. As a public broadcaster they'll probably never make everyone happy. Even if they disbanded the tv licence fee people would still be funding it through taxes and stuff. Like I'd almost prefer a tv licence here since it might mean the CBC would create and play decent things instead of airing repeats of the Simpsons (don't ask me how that meets Canadian Content Regulations) But then there are those that say that there should be no public broadcasters and that the BBC should be a fully commercial enterprise. And clearly I'm a dork who's far too interested in public broadcasting. -___-


Ohhh the article goes on to mention the commercial vs publicly funded issues. It's like being back in my media and public spaces class. We spent teh whole semester looking at the BBC, the CBC (canadian public broadcaster) and others around the world and looking at how they succeed and fail and issues and concerns.

[yuki-scorpio.livejournal.com]

It's not just the videos, though. It's all those information - in depth news reports, cooking recipes, sports news... all of those is available to everyone with net access. And them daring to charge anyone who has a TV - it doesn't matter if you don't watch BBC or even any TV channels at all (like if you only use it to play games). If it's the latter, they will send people to have your TV disabled from receiving signals, ie damage your telly. Surely that sort of work costs more money than the actual fee they'd get from the person.

Oh and, if you deny entry to your home from the TV licence people (because afaik they have no legal rights to demand entry, EVER), then they can't say you have a TV even if they detected you've been receiving signals, and therefore you can't be fined, or something like that. Apparently they have to physically be there and find a TV in your house first.

Publicly funded things are always a difficult issue ("if I never go out, why should I be paying the council tax that funds the roadworks and street lighting" would be an extreme example). But somehow, the TV licencing in particular just seems particularly fucked up.

[fic-faery.livejournal.com]

Well for the news reports, many private newspapers etc have articles on the web now, and actually BBC world is one of the most aired and popular new shows in the world. The BBC makes quite a nice profit by selling rights to news clips, tv shows and dvd sales around the globe. (not that that would appease you very much I'm sure lol)

I think I'm too laid back and brainwashed by that class to get all grr about things, but I defintely understand the otherside of the argument and I think the whole dismantling of tvs is a bit far, and I can't believe you have to pay a fee for each tv in the house. I think a standard fee per house wouldn't be as bad, or like so much percent of gov't funding would go to BBC. But then you still have people complain. lol it reminds me of the CBC, barely anyone watches it except for hockey a few other hit shows, mainly comedy, but when they government did polls to see if Canadians were willing to dismantle the cbc tv they were all up in arms about it because it's part of being Canadian and growing up or something like that. I was amused that you can never make people happy.

I think a better example is buses. You don't know how often I hear people complaining about that, especially in Ottawa right now since we have a big kerfuffle involving light rail transit costing millions. People with cars and who never use public transport wonder why so much of their taxes go for the operating costs.

And I really shouldn't comment about anything half intellectual when I first get up, so I apologize for typos and if anything sounds rude or weird at all.

[solaas.livejournal.com]

I have no idea if this link will for from outside Norway, but I hope so. This is an ad that the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) used to send every year when I was a kid, to remind people to pay the tv licence. I was reminded of it by the talk here about dismantling tellies and so on. I believe it won a prize in Montreaux back in the 70s. :)

A TV detective in Norway!

[yuki-scorpio.livejournal.com]

.................OMG XDDDDD

I've only seen one or two here, one of them features the guy playing a videotape of a chicken spinning in the microwave oven, so that the TV looked like a microwave oven, to try to escape from licencing officers....

[solaas.livejournal.com]

XDDD I think I've seen that one! It does at the very least ring a bell.

[strawberryjoy.livejournal.com]

The argument for the licence was a lot more clearcut in the days when there were only 3 tv channels and no internet.

[yuki-scorpio.livejournal.com]

I still want to know why people call BBC THREE and Channel Five "TV channels" when the former is a waste of space and the latter is a waste of space and also a lot of people can't get good reception for it anyway. =_="

[elyndys.livejournal.com]

PUT ADVERTS ON THE RADIO AND STOP CHARGING ME

...I'd rather pay a radio licence. Radio adverts are the worst thing you can ever hear, especially when you're at work and have no escape, and they're the reason I don't listen a lot of stations I might otherwise enjoy more than daytime Radio 1. But even the playlist system is better than having to sit through adverts every 15 minutes. *shudder*

[yuki-scorpio.livejournal.com]

I don't know, really. Radio makes my head hurt. Radio ads are bad though, I agree. Every time I go into a shop and hear radio ads on their speakers, I just want to turn around and walk right out.

[elyndys.livejournal.com]

Ahh, I love the radio you see, and, even though the daytime shows are repetitive and/or dull, the speciality shows they do are really brilliant, and even the daytime DJs have a certain mark of class about them. No-one does radio like the BBC, it has to be said. I'd rather have a radio than a TV, in fact, and I'd be prepared to pay a small fee if there was the threat of adverts having over it!

[solaas.livejournal.com]

*cling!* Another anti-radio person!!! *_* I never listen to the radio either, if I can at all help it. Which makes it a pain to visit the folks, since they pretty much always have the radio on. And if not that, then the telly. =_=