TV Licence Resistance

[dutchmanswife]

DH has been running a campaign for years against the TV licence and has appeared in the Sunday Times this week.

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6797727.ece

I'm feeling quite proud of him.

and if sky is so superior and wonderful why does it keep swooping in and overbidding on TV shows which the terrestrial channels have done all the legwork on and made a success?

I am thinking of things like House, Prison Break, Heroes, 24 etc - the list is almost endless.

All these were spotted, promoted and popularised in the UK by the terrestrial channels, including of course the BBC. It was only after they'd taken the initial risk and done the legwork that Sky swooped in and creamed them off when they had become an established commodity.

I don't think that's evidence of Sky's marvellousness. I think that's evidence of their willingness to cash in on other channels' hard work and enterprise.

theyoungvisitor,

The only show you have named there that the bbc bothered to bid for was heroes, the others were on 4 0r 5, in fact itv tried to outbid 5 for season 2 of house, so all channels are in a bidding war to try and get the best series for it's ratings except the bbc, who do not need the ratings because they get funding from the licence payer and thus provide a crappier service to viewers, which is what I was saying before, if they were made to compete for their money via commercials and sponsers they would put themselves out there and bid for decent shows instead of the recycled garbage and reality tv that is on now.

Take the football, the bbc were outbid for the rights to the premiership and other matches such as Euro cup and sky won the deal, so limited football on the bbc ( many sigh in relief, but many OH do not) is it fair? yes, it's buisness, but the bbc whine about losing the football, they want licence payers to cough up more money so they can bid higher.

No, if they want to compete with the big boys then they should be commercially financed or become the second rate channels they are showing mindless drivel like eastenders, come dancing and the weakest link.

I'm sure if the bbc were to have a high injection of cash they would try to poach established shows from sky just as they have poached presenters like JR by using ? 16 million of licence payers money to finance it ( really, really, really not worth it).

but atlantis - part of their charter is to do original programming - the reason they have fewer imports than the other channels is because they are limited on what they are allowed to buy.

My point was not to say that the BBC should or even could outbid Sky on these shows, it was solely directed to the people saying that Sky has far better shows than terrestrial generally.

FruitPud Not really viable. We have established lives here. We'd rather use our right to free speech to object.

It's good see different points of view even ones I might not agree with. Debate is good.

Theyoungvisitor,

I understand, but the bbc is only 'limited' because it makes it's money from the licence fee, another good reason to scrap it.

The 'original' programming they produce is on the whole terrible as seen by their viewing figures.

They spend their money (which is really our money) on presenters they say are cutting edge ( JR and norton et al) when most of the country don't tune in. They spend it on jaunts here and there, even leaving parties and then there are the expenses. (it's like the government expenses scandal all over again).

The BBC are their own worst enemy, they load the basis with useless talent, useless exec's and are never fair or unbiased with their reporting as they are supposed to be.

If everyone got to keep their licence fee money (if bbc went commercial) they could watch freeview channels or the basic sky package, the elderly should get the basic package for free, no one would lose out and would have more choice and the BBC would be forced to compete and provide programming people wanted to see on a regular basis.

People wouldn't feel so hard done by paying for someone like JR to sit there smugly flapping his lips for a hour a few weeks a year.

I pay the fee because it's the law, but I don't watch the shows, use their internet service or listen to their radio broadcasts, like a lot of others, I choose to watch programmes I like on sky and pay the subscription for it, that's not exactly a fair and just system. And the BBC is not a necessity like the health service, we could all get by quite happily without it.

"The 'original' programming they produce is on the whole terrible as seen by their viewing figures."

Eh? Sorry - what figures are you basing this on?

Here are the % ratings for last available week's TV audience share (3rd-9th August)

BBC 1 19.1
BBC 2 7.4
ITV1 16.1
C 4 6.9
FIVE 4.9

As you can see BBC1 comfortably out performs the commercial stations in terms of market share.

In terms of individual shows, BBC1's highest rating show of that week was Tuesday's edition of Eastenders which got 8.2 million viewers.

In contrast, Sky's highest rating show was the Chelsea/Man U match with 1.2 million viewers. Their next highest show (House Season 5 on Sky 1) didn't even reach 1 million viewers.

I'm honestly not sure where you have got this idea that the BBC's audience ratings are in crisis.

anyway anyway anyway I don't know how we got onto the ratings of the BBC because none of this is the POINT.

The point is that without a funded BBC there would be little or no of the following:
arts programming for TV or radio
serious speech radio
local news reporting
book coverage on TV and radio
commissioned drama for radio
World Service programming
etc etc etc

This type of programming simply can't survive the Darwinian system of ad-funded TV and radio. Witness (to use just one example) the collapse of Oneword radio last year.

I for one am more than happy to pay a license fee to ensure that all of the above still has a place on our screens and radios. AND we get Dr Who thrown in for good measure

(and no I don't work for the beeb in case you are wondering)

skyarts do tons of arts programmes, two channels full.

yes, all with teeny tiny weeny ratings.

besides which, "Suggs' Italian Job" and a Led Zepplin concert recorded in 1969 is not what I would call cutting edge arts reporting (that is what's on tonight on Sky Arts 1)

Ok, so the football isn't really a good example because not everyone who has sky has access to sky sports, so 1.2 mil is a bloody good figure.

But sky have 9 million subscribers of whom all can get get sky 1 (house) of those viewers who had a choice to watch endless channels nearly 1 million tuned in to see House.

Every household in the country can get BBC1, (obvious exceptions apply) of those 8.2 million watched eastenders (really? Eastenders? vomit) I would say that was a pee poor showing.

Now looking at the audience share BBC1 got 19.1 %, while ITV a commercial channel got 16.1% , a £% difference, so yeah I would say they are not doing very well.

While the figures for the first half of 2009 are showing that 63.7 % of viewers watched commercial tv. www.cable.co.uk/news/commercial-tv-viewing-up-in-2009-19302068/

So how many of those 63.7 % who pay for sky would vote to get rid of the tv licence fee?

i always watch sky arts, there's more to it than that, they also show tales of the unexpected every afternoon

they also have lots of plays and ballet, bbc four it's endless proms, great if you like the proms..

Pretty much anyone who wants Sky would have it by now. So the viewing figures for House are pretty much all you'll get. A lot of people have Sky "reluctantly" because of the football.

And I don't want Eastenders.

"So how many of those 63.7 % who pay for sky would vote to get rid of the tv licence fee?"

Atlantis, I think you're misreading the figures - 63.7% of people do not pay for Sky. That refers to the number of people who watch any non-BBC channel - ie sky, C4, ITV, Dave TV, Nuts TV - whatever.

That says that with the choice of all the hundreds of paid for and free to view channels available to the TV-watching public, almost 40% still went for BBC1, 2, 3 or 4.

Said,

I don't think that's accurate, my niece has just set up home and would love sky, but can't afford it, a lot of people are having to give up cable tv because they can't afford it with job losses. So to enable these people to have the choice should this shite wonderful government not get rid of the fee for bbc and allow people to keep their sky tv, albeit, a lower package?

theyoungvisitor,

I do apologise what I meant to say was how many of those 63.7 % who pay for the bbc would choose to get rid of the licence.

If you honestly would prefer to have your screens entirely full of ITV tosh and Poo at Paul's ads, and sacrifice gems like The News Quiz, I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, A Good Read, Book at Bedtime and all the hundreds of other TV and radio programmes which enrich our lives but are not commercially viable, then good luck to you.

Personally, I'm off to watch some quality BBC tosh in the form of Desperate Romantics on iplayer.

Personally I don't watch ITV, C4 OR 5 either, I watch sky tv shows on plus so I can fast forward adverts so I haven't a clue about anything you've just mentioned, but hey who knows maybe if I did watch bbc I might like a couple of their shows (maybe).But there is just sooo much choice on sky that I wouldn't have time to give it a go.

While we are all made to pay for the tv licence I like to think my share goes towards paying for an elderly person who gets it for free.

Do you not think that perhaps you should watch some of these TV channels you are so busy deriding? It might give your opinion that they are all crap some weight.

I think it's counterproductive to look at the BBC's value solely in terms of audience figures.

Audience figures measure majority choices. That may sell advertising, but I don't feel my entertainment needs are met by majority choices.

I don't watch soaps, or daytime tv, or chat shows, or game shows. What's left for me in mainstream non-BBC tv? Little.

The whole point of the BBC is that in amongst the popular trash it has to produce to appear useful to the majority are gems that minority audiences appreciate with all their hearts.

Surely this is worth financing? Even if you only watch game shows, soaps, and Jeremy Kyle, surely it's worth acknowledging that the greater good is served by radio and tv broadcasting that doesn't have to dance to the tune of advertising revenues?

It's like suggesting no-one should be allowed to buy steak because it doesn't sell as quickly, and causes losses, and most people buy mince, so here, everyone have mince.

atlantis - not sure I'm convinced about that. Just checked Sky costs - basic package plus Sky Movies and Sky Sports (assuming these are what people want, no idea really) costs over £40 per month . TV licence is £142.40 per year. What a bargain! So, up the licence fee (not by much) and the BBC would then be able to compete. I'm not entirely sure I'm serious about that but I am genuinely shocked at how expensive Sky is.

Said, why would people need to subscribe to sky movies and sports on top of the basic package?

I'm not here to advertise sky prices and services, but if you had the basic pack (which gives you the digital upgrade a lot of people will need soon) you'll pay 16.50 a month, for that you get the basics, the licence fee per month in installments is what ? about £13? so your paying £3 extra for more channels and all the radio channels plus digital connection.

Each individual pack costs an extra £1, so entertainment pack , childrens pack, knowledge etc can be added as tastes and money allow.

But right now if you took out one of their packages = 1 pack + sky talk + broadband (wireless) you pay for all three £16.50 per month.

So scrap the cost of a tv licence £13, scrap the cost of your phone line? £11? scrap the cost of your wireless broadband? £15 =£39 and pay £16.50 or upgrade you channels with more packs etc to the same price you would have been paying.

I don't think thats such a bad deal.

atlantis - I've no idea about Sky packages tbh. Some of us don't go near Murdoch stuff so the price, for me, is irrelevant.

Snigger,

The only way to look at the arguement I believe is to say;

A) is it value for money (is the licenec fee going towards financing the right things and giving the licence payer their monies worth)

B) could it be done better and cheaper (none of the silly OTT expenses, juants, bonuses etc at the fee payers expense)

C) is it still adhering to it's concept ( popular entertainment for all, unbiased reporting, a world leader that is (back to A) value for money).

the only answer can be no.

It's not value for money because year on year they want more for less and less popular programming and are not able to compete with commercial services.

It could be done better and cheaper if they didn't pay self absorbed minor celebrities stupid salaries, pay for how many employees to go out to the olympics?, pay for how many juants here there and everywhere, pay for cutting edge broadcasting that nobody watches.

It's not half as popular as it used to be, the attitude of the bbc is they don't care if something upsets the viewers, listeners, until someone makes a big stink about it, what they say goes on air, goes. The so called unbiased reporting of the news channels and documentaries is laughable, they are as bad, if not worse than the newspapers, my father was so disgusted with their unbiased reporting of the Gaza conflict he switched off.

If they can't even stick to their mandate then what good are they?

So the only thing the beeb has going for it is that there are no commercials ? But there's no quality either. The few gems they make would be made if they were commercial, and sold to other stations around the world which brings in extra finance (as now).

Would you pay £140 a year to a milkman who occassionally leave you a bottle of milk that wasn't rancid? I wouldn't.

Said,

now your making it about Murdoch, which is a completely different thread to be had.

The BBC have always had their own political agenda which is usually against the Conservative party, so to labour voters yea to conservatives hope the ship goes down with everyone on board.

I'm sure after watching the Gaza coverage the Israel wasn't exactly impressed by the beeb.

Everyone has an agenda, why should we all have to pay for the bbc's?