As multi-choice TV booms, BBC loses 500,000 viewers

[Shipoftheline]

Ship, where has this ferocious hatred of the BBC come from...I don't like paying the licience fee (does any one 'like' paying a tax?), but as I said before it's the law, allied to which as I said before I think the Beeb do a pretty good job.
How else do you propose to fund a 'public' service provider? Even in America they have publicly funded TV channels & radio for that matter.
Are you seriously suggesting that you don't watch any BBC made TV programs??? On principle...??
After all there are many programs on Sly channels & terrestial digital (although the BBC holds a stake in the company that runs terrestial digital system) channels made or co-produced by the BBC...

1: Dont get this ruddy conn of the BBC's mixed up with our everyday taxes its just the ruddy funding for this rippoff off and if you support it your supporting people being ripping off for what some would say is your own selfish means

2: My hatred of the BBC has come from years of not watching it (multichannels) yet being told if you own a television set you must pay for these mugging b#st#rds or they'll send people round and your then either fined or classed as a crinimal

3: The American people are not forced to pay for public television and they have much better television than us in my opinion Stargate, Atlantis, Battlestar, Lost, CSI's, Invasion, Threshold, desperate housewives etc

4: Yes I knew BBC has a stake in FREEview(hardly free with the BBC on board)

Dyke 'promoted Freeview to save licence fee'

Greg Dyke has confirmed suspicions in the commercial sector that he launched the digital terrestrial TV service, Freeview, as a way of delaying the day the licence fee would be scrapped.

Because most Freeview boxes do not contain the card slots or encryption technology required to operate a pay-TV service, Mr Dyke concluded that leading the launch of the service following the collapse of ITV Digital was "important to the BBC defensively".

"Freeview makes it very hard for any government to try and make the BBC a pay-television service. The more Freeview boxes out there, the harder it will be to switch the BBC to a subscription service since most of the boxes can't be adapted for pay-TV," wrote Mr Dyke, who was forced out of his job in January following the Hutton report.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1306274,00.html

So again its all fine and dandy for fans of the BBC if you dont like it though people are still forced to pay for this crap. With all these channels today people should have a choice and if the BBC is so good in some peoples eyes then why worry they'll be the biggest thing since sliced bread

 

[pinkhelmets]

please read.... sorry its long

...Dont get this ruddy conn of the BBC's mixed up with our everyday taxes its just the ruddy funding for this rippoff off and if you support it your supporting people being ripping off for what some would say is your own selfish means...

You contradict yourself SOTL- the licence is not fair because you're subsidising others so they can get tv choice without subcription, yet you say this is selfish- Just because you dont want it!! Every member here can make their own mind up on which view is selfish......

Anyway, PLEASE read my post Shipoftheline so you can understand me, i really dont mean to attack you personally and i realise you are not the only one who hates the licence.

....its just the ruddy funding for this rippoff off....

This just proves your ill-informed views of the licence fee and proof that your lack of education on it is why you disagree with it! I have said much before and i can say so much more but i'm not gonna change your view. I think we can agree that my political view on this is very far to the left and against the idea of total pay-tv (where everyone has to pay just for the channels they want) and your view is very far to the right (everyone has to pay for what they want and no subsidising what you dont want) BUT exactly in the middle of us both are facts and the fact is the licence fee exists (and was created) to enable British tv to expand/grow, provide choice for EVERYONE, and strive to offer best value & best tv service in the world, it just so happens that it is "BBC" that control that public funding on everyones behalf. It could be called ITV or a mix of companies argueing over what goes where, but its not its 1 public owned company called BBC.

Surely you can see it has to be fair that everyone chips in an equal amount by law and the plan is created, even if you feel BBC management is so bad, the fact that you dont want something doesnt mean that others might and it doesnt mean you can get away with the majority decision that makes it law. Same as you cant murder someone just because you feel its ok, the majority say its unacceptable and the law is in place. Now, i dont care who has plans to get away without paying, i dont care that people come here to get cable tv without paying, i dont care who drives a stolen car, its your business good luck to you, my personal point is that the licence is fair (which i understand thats what you dont agree).

So SOTL, you feel the BBC should not get the licence money to spend, because they do such a crap job with it. Maybe thats a different story, but my personal view (from the far left) is that they do a great job with it and should continue having the funds. We would all still be in the dark ages with maybe 1 or 2 local channels if it were not for constant public investment all through the decades, but instead BBC have created the very best all-round tv service (agreed by millions). I know you believe that BBC programs are rubbish and that American is best but surely you can see its great to have the choice? British tv is different, sport is different, comedies are different and do suit the majority of the uk public. BBC continue to strive to be Number1 in the world, and with this attitude you get great competition! Even pay-tv like Sky or DirectTV (usa) were created to try and be better than terrestrial channels. Spain is an example I can use with experience, it does not have a licence system and never has. You get what you pay for, or accept the free stuff. There is absolutely nothing worthwhile thats on terrestrial for free, no programs are made to sell abroad, no interest for even the spanish let alone anywhere else. They have pay-tv but no way can you compare to ours, and no way do they have the funding to ever compete with ours. Imagine how long before spanish channels will be widescreen, let alone digital or High Definition, LOL. Now there are hundreds of countries with worse tv than Spain, but why is the UK tv so good and so wanted all over the world? Because its the best (even if you dont like none of it)!! Why is it the best? Because public funding via a fair licence system created it and management has always been good or else the public get rid etc. So lets get back to the UK, ITV constantly fight to be better than BBC, Ch4 constantly fight to take as many away from BBC & ITV as possible, Ch5 dream of being Ch4, and Sky fight to win subscriptions from those that want even more choice. These constant battles create TV that suits absolutely everyone (including you) and we really have got the best choice of television, so the original plan has worked (thanks to the licence).

Lets now take this reported drop of 500,000 viewers from the bbc programming (its an unfair report and biased but who cares). So the bbc see that other channels have something better public are going elsewhere, should they just shut down and say oh well the licence system dont work anymore, OR do you think they will do their best to improve the quality of programming and regain viewers? Kind of like every serious company in the world, you strive to become the best then try even harder to stay at the top while others attempt to be better.

The final line from me has to be that in all this behind the scene stuff the winners are viewers of British TV however method they watch it. Great FREE tv & choice to suit everyone, with great pay-tv for those that can afford more.

----

ps. oops not final line - do you realise that pay-tv like sky for instance subsidise between packages? ie, the 6 mix pack subsidises the sports / movies / full packages coz they would be too expensive and no-one would go for. So is it fair that majority of sky subscribers should pay towards movie rights and sport that they dont even get?? Its just life, but it allows existence.

Regards to all tv viewers whatever side of the fence you sit .

 

[Shipoftheline]

pinkhelmets it's very clear that you like the BBC thats your choice and an easy one when you have everyone else who owns a TV set keeping your viewing costs down by subsidising chipping in. You see I and many others (recent polls show 60% agains't it) dont have that choice and resent paying for your viewing habbits its really that simple some people seem to want to live in the past

 

[lone.gunman]

Well said PInk's m8

To re-inforce Pink's argument I would say that if the BBC is doing such a bad job, how come so much of their programming gets sold around the world?? It would be an interesting statistic (although totally useless) to see the proportion of programming output that gets sold outside the 'host' country, for the BBC, ITV, C4 and then the US majors......But we're getting into semantics here.

I firmly beleive that we should have a 'public' service broadcaster in the UK, currently it's funded by the licience fee. Which as I said I don't like, but it's the law. Are you going to stop paying income taxbecause you don't claim any benefits..??? Or because you don't think you should pay for a motorway somewhere you don't go or you don't have a car???

Ship, sorry to disagree, but I think you'll find the public access channels in the states (& for that matter NPR radio) are funded by federal government (or state, can't recall/find which one), so everyone pays......

 

[Shipoftheline]

I dont think there should be any arguments on this matter we should have a choice and any beeb fans out there should realise this you like it YOU pay for it simple

 

[little_pob]

Ship: You don't seem to be able to accept that some people pay their tv licence just because its against the law not too. Whether or not they like or even watch BBC programs, they pay because £126.50 per year is cheaper than £1000 fine. You should realise that not everyone is as well up on the limited powers afforded to the tv licencing people, compaired to what they claim they have, as you are.

Ok you don't watch the BBC, fair enough. We accept that. We also can infer from your comments that you don't pay your tv licence, which is your choice too.

But whilst you don't watch the BBC channels (I wonder if this self-imposed boycott extends to the BBC radio staitions which your 'tv' licence also funds?), there are people who do watch the BBC and don't pay the TV licence. To me this important point seriously undermines your "you like it, YOU pay for it" argument.

Incidentaly if these websites you keep providing links too are operated by yourself, and someone being prosecuted claims they where using the advice on the website you could find yourself in trouble with the police for incitement (even if there you have a disclaimer, the information contained on the sites is only relevent to those who don't pay their tv licence).

 

[Shipoftheline]

Ship: You don't seem to be able to accept that some people pay their tv licence just because its against the law not too. Whether or not they like or even watch BBC programs, they pay because £126.50 per year is cheaper than £1000 fine. You should realise that not everyone is as well up on the limited powers afforded to the tv licencing people, compaired to what they claim they have, as you are.

Ok you don't watch the BBC, fair enough. We accept that. We also can infer from your comments that you don't pay your tv licence, which is your choice too.

But whilst you don't watch the BBC channels (I wonder if this self-imposed boycott extends to the BBC radio staitions which your 'tv' licence also funds?), there are people who do watch the BBC and don't pay the TV licence. To me this important point seriously undermines your "you like it, YOU pay for it" argument.

Incidentaly if these websites you keep providing links too are operated by yourself, and someone being prosecuted claims they where using the advice on the website you could find yourself in trouble with the police for incitement (even if there you have a disclaimer, the information contained on the sites is only relevent to those who don't pay their tv licence).

I listen to the radio sometimes normally The Hits and Talksport again the BBC offers me and lots of others nothing why do some people find this so hard to understand ?

You think I operate these as an example,

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1306274,00.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=404286&in_page_id=2

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4602_131/ai_91086058


or do I work for the BBC perhaps ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3537567.stm

What I'm trying to get at again is people should be allowed to own a television set without the beeb and its supporters expecting everyone to pay them. If you think thats out of order then sorry but I always move on the BBC & its fans haven't

 

[little_pob]

First off. I don't think your out of order, your only expressing your opinions.

It just appeared, to me at least, that you where reading pink's and lone gunman's posts as personal attacks, rather than the counter arguments they were intended to be.

You think I operate these as an example,

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1306274,00.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=404286&in_page_id=2

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4602_131/ai_91086058


or do I work for the BBC perhaps ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3537567.stm

I was actually refering to the sites which used to be in your signature, and those that you have posted in previous threads about the tv licence. I.E. those sites that tell you what the rights of a tv licencing representative has in questioning you and (not) entering your property. Information which is only relevent to people evading or thinking about evading paying for a tv licence, as apposed to the news articles that you have posted, which are intended to inform and spark debate (which they clearly have here).

I admit that the tv licence is out dated, its not like sky expect non-sky users to pay for/subsidise the sky+ service for instance (though sky, itv and others would like a slice of the tv licence, and I don't blame them). Plus I'm willing to point out myself that the state owned channel 4 is proof that PBS via means other than the tv licence can work in the UK (e.g. advertising, film production and pay-to-view channels).

But all of that doesn't change the fact that it is illegal in the UK not to have a tv licence and own a tv (or other device able to receive broadcasts). Therefore telling people not to pay their tv licence, could be construded as incitement to break the law. I hope you can accept my point of view on this last bit, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[Shipoftheline]

Nicely put little_pob and no I dont pay LF your correct they haven't given me the choice so I made myself one. The fact that more and more people are getting pissed with the LF hopefully will mean change will come sooner than later

 

[teracir]

Tv Licience

i have to say having read both sides of the argument, i still do not agree with the fact that you should be forced to pay TV licience but i understand the point of view of people are are for it. since abolishing a TV licence would simply mean that we will get taxed from somewhere else which would be worser than the current situation.

terristrial tv should be freely avilable to the publisc with special programmes become pay-per view. this way everyone gets to watch TV. a guy earlier said that we pay for elederly who can not afford pay-per-veiw programmes but my argument to that would be that in today's situation, the government is imposing so many taxes, it is difficult for the elderly to survive let alone watch tv. for the over 75's, there is no licience fee anyway so they would not be affected.

i watch BBC channels here and then but i would not agree with BBC's survey into the number of people watching BBC (15 minutes/ week), 15 minutes a week could be spent if you contiually switch through the channels so how does this indicate that someone has been watching the channel. if they did a survey of someone continually watching BBC for half an hour they would find that 87% would be reduced down to 40%.

people earn money so they could spend it on something they want and not forced to give money for something they do not believe in.

this is only my point of view and YES, i do pay my tv livence but also have a job which means ihardly watch any tv during the week. at the weekend i am only interested in sports and movies, neither of witch any of the terestrial channels provide, BUT HEY I MIGHT BE A ONE OFF!!!

 

[csX]

If the Beeb want funding, put adverts on. People who don't watch the BBC shouldn't have to pay for something they don't watch.

I don't pay for my next door neighbour to wash their clothes at the laundrette while I use my own washer - its their choice to wash their clothes at the laundrette and they can pay for it.