Tv licence has "10 years left"

[L00b]

Your right, you can't explain what it does that needs to be saved, if you can't explain that then I can't see any reason for a licence fee never mind General taxation paying for it to be saved.

 

So let's scrap it !

Quite on the contrary, I can explain it. It's just that it would take pages of thread before you get it (if you are willing to get it, that is...and nothing is less sure, considering the circularity of your pro-commercial service argument so far).

 

After my earlier hint that 'it's more than the RF hardware', here is another hint: it's all about the public character of the service, and very little to do with the similarity of content of the TV broadcasts.

 

I can't put it any more succinctly than this: any country (but particularly democracies) needs a free-to-air, independent (i.e. reasonably objective), informative and entertainment service by TV, radio and, in these post-noughties days, internet, that caters for its entire demographic. In the exact same way as that country needs social and health services, policing and security services, government services, <etc.>

 

That means the country also needs to have a broadcast infrastructure to deliver that service, some of the capacity of which it can (and most do-) lease to commercial operators (commercial terrestrial and satellite operators, mobile network operators), some of which it leases to the national broadcaster(s), some of which it keeps for private/security use (police, army, ATC).

 

All of it needs to be funded, because nothing costs 'nothing' to produce and deliver, be it the network, or the content delivered on it.

 

How it is funded is a function of tax denomination (what you call it: tax, license fee, subscription <blah>) and apportionment (how much of it goes to hardware, how much of it to the BBC, how much of it to other e.g. admin): at the end of the day, it has to be taxpayer's money (because nobody other than the Gvt can own the broadcast spectra, and preferably nobody other than the Gvt keeps ultimate control of the core hardware that governs use of that spectra), however you call it, however it is collected.

 

In that context, the UK's "broadcast tax" (your monthly £12 'TV' license) goes two-ways: on the hardware side (and admin thereof) as previously explained, and on the BBC because the Gvt has to fund it following the Royal Charter that maintains the BBC (the only real influence which the Gvt can exert on the BBC is through budgetary pressure ('try and get the BBC to do its bidding by giving less money annually'), because the editorial independence of the BBC is guaranteed by that Charter).

 

That Royal Charter posits the following public services as the prime function and purpose of the BBC:

• Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
  
• Promoting education and learning;
  
• Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
  
• Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
  
• Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
  
• Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services.

The BBC delivers all of that and more, in my book. But no commercial TV channel is ever going to have any of the above in its mission statement, never mind do anything about delivering them: their sole and main purpose is, like any capitalistic organisation, to make a return for their shareholder. That's not meant as a "lefty" judgement or comment at all, but just as a simple and objective statement of fact.

Edited June 23, 2015 by L00b

[Magilla]

Reduce the size of the BBC by getting rid of all the extra channels and radio stations with tiny niche audiences.

 

The programs with the niche audiences are generally the ones that are the most educational and inspire people in their careers, The Sky at Night being a prime example. In many ways, it's those niche programs that are part of the reason the BBC is so great.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 17:24 ----------

 

It's only a bargain if you actually need it.

 

Just like any public service, the NHS (for example).

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 17:32 ----------

 

I don't think the BBC does the public any good.

 

Patently nonsense.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 17:34 ----------

 

I dont think it's been explained even slightly, Ive asked numerous times for several posters to explain what the BBC does that can't be replaced, I've yet to get any answer at all !

 

Change BBC for NHS. The principles under which they're run are identical.

 

Do you think the NHS would be better as a private/"pay for what you use" type system?

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 17:36 ----------

 

As explained, the BBC would be gone as a public good if it was turned into a subscription service.

 

Agree entirely.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Magilla

[bigsexydoug]

The programs with the niche audiences are generally the ones that are the most educational and inspire people in their careers, The Sky at Night being a prime example. In many ways, it's those niche programs that are part of the reason the BBC is so great.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 17:24 ----------

 

 

Just like any public service, the NHS (for example).

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 17:32 ----------

 

 

Patently nonsense.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 17:34 ----------

 

 

Change BBC for NHS. The principles under which they're run are identical.

 

Do you think the NHS would be better as a private/"pay for what you use" type system?

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 17:36 ----------

 

 

Agree entirely.

 

Your attempt to change the BBC to the nhs is laughable at best, and an attempt to derail the thread, the nhs is a matter of life or death, the BBC is simply a few radio and tv shows which many many other people provide some for free and some paid for.

[RickyM]

I think introduce a subscription fee then those that want to watch the rubbish can pay for it.

 

Any programme that is of any good will be sold to another broadcaster to be shown later on another channel, for free, so we could all watch it for free then.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 17:58 ----------

 

Your attempt to change the BBC to the nhs is laughable at best, and an attempt to derail the thread, the nhs is a matter of life or death, the BBC is simply a few radio and tv shows which many many other people provide some for free and some paid for.

 

Spot on!

 

Some people make silly and baseless arguments for keeping something. It's desperate.

[Mister M]

Your attempt to change the BBC to the nhs is laughable at best, and an attempt to derail the thread, the nhs is a matter of life or death, the BBC is simply a few radio and tv shows which many many other people provide some for free and some paid for.

 

In post 84 L00b articulated very clearly the role & function of the BBC. You don't get it, I get that.

The BBC certainly isn't perfect but it'll be a shame if it does go....

[bigsexydoug]

Quite on the contrary, I can explain it. It's just that it would take pages of thread before you get it (if you are willing to get it, that is...and nothing is less sure, considering the circularity of your pro-commercial service argument so far).

 

After my earlier hint that 'it's more than the RF hardware', here is another hint: it's all about the public character of the service, and very little to do with the similarity of content of the TV broadcasts.

 

I can't put it any more succinctly than this: any country (but particularly democracies) needs a free-to-air, independent (i.e. reasonably objective), informative and entertainment service by TV, radio and, in these post-noughties days, internet, that caters for its entire demographic. In the exact same way as that country needs social and health services, policing and security services, government services, <etc.>

 

That means the country also needs to have a broadcast infrastructure to deliver that service, some of the capacity of which it can (and most do-) lease to commercial operators (commercial terrestrial and satellite operators, mobile network operators), some of which it leases to the national broadcaster(s), some of which it keeps for private/security use (police, army, ATC).

 

All of it needs to be funded, because nothing costs 'nothing' to produce and deliver, be it the network, or the content delivered on it.

 

How it is funded is a function of tax denomination (what you call it: tax, license fee, subscription <blah>) and apportionment (how much of it goes to hardware, how much of it to the BBC, how much of it to other e.g. admin): at the end of the day, it has to be taxpayer's money (because nobody other than the Gvt can own the broadcast spectra, and preferably nobody other than the Gvt keeps ultimate control of the core hardware that governs use of that spectra), however you call it, however it is collected.

 

In that context, the UK's "broadcast tax" (your monthly £12 'TV' license) goes two-ways: on the hardware side (and admin thereof) as previously explained, and on the BBC because the Gvt has to fund it following the Royal Charter that maintains the BBC (the only real influence which the Gvt can exert on the BBC is through budgetary pressure ('try and get the BBC to do its bidding by giving less money annually'), because the editorial independence of the BBC is guaranteed by that Charter).

 

That Royal Charter posits the following public services as the prime function and purpose of the BBC:

• Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
  
• Promoting education and learning;
  
• Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
  
• Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
  
• Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
  
• Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services.

The BBC delivers all of that and more, in my book. But no commercial TV channel is ever going to have any of the above in its mission statement, never mind do anything about delivering them: their sole and main purpose is, like any capitalistic organisation, to make a return for their shareholder. That's not meant as a "lefty" judgement or comment at all, but just as a simple and objective statement of fact.

 

But it's not providing this, as me and many others on here can testify, in fact I doubt the BBC educates any more than the discovery channel or national geographic,

And why would it need to stop doing that anyway ?

It would still receive you and people that think like yours money and could quite happily continue doing that but get rid of about 90% of its output,like eastenders and the voice and continue to do things in its charter without my money.

[cassity]

Option 3 for me but prison is a bit draconian.

 

The licence fee is pretty good value. Most of my time watching and listening is taken up by the BBC. I dislike adverts.

[bigsexydoug]

In post 84 L00b articulated very clearly the role & function of the BBC. You don't get it, I get that.

The BBC certainly isn't perfect but it'll be a shame if it does go....

 

I've now replied to that post, not in the depth I would like to have but as much as I can using my phone. the BBC doesn't have to go though, you would have a choice to pay for it to stay the same, the same choice people are denying others !

[ricgem2002]

Quite on the contrary, I can explain it. It's just that it would take pages of thread before you get it (if you are willing to get it, that is...and nothing is less sure, considering the circularity of your pro-commercial service argument so far).

 

After my earlier hint that 'it's more than the RF hardware', here is another hint: it's all about the public character of the service, and very little to do with the similarity of content of the TV broadcasts.

 

I can't put it any more succinctly than this: any country (but particularly democracies) needs a free-to-air, independent (i.e. reasonably objective), informative and entertainment service by TV, radio and, in these post-noughties days, internet, that caters for its entire demographic. In the exact same way as that country needs social and health services, policing and security services, government services, <etc.>

 

That means the country also needs to have a broadcast infrastructure to deliver that service, some of the capacity of which it can (and most do-) lease to commercial operators (commercial terrestrial and satellite operators, mobile network operators), some of which it leases to the national broadcaster(s), some of which it keeps for private/security use (police, army, ATC).

 

All of it needs to be funded, because nothing costs 'nothing' to produce and deliver, be it the network, or the content delivered on it.

 

How it is funded is a function of tax denomination (what you call it: tax, license fee, subscription <blah>) and apportionment (how much of it goes to hardware, how much of it to the BBC, how much of it to other e.g. admin): at the end of the day, it has to be taxpayer's money (because nobody other than the Gvt can own the broadcast spectra, and preferably nobody other than the Gvt keeps ultimate control of the core hardware that governs use of that spectra), however you call it, however it is collected.

 

In that context, the UK's "broadcast tax" (your monthly £12 'TV' license) goes two-ways: on the hardware side (and admin thereof) as previously explained, and on the BBC because the Gvt has to fund it following the Royal Charter that maintains the BBC (the only real influence which the Gvt can exert on the BBC is through budgetary pressure ('try and get the BBC to do its bidding by giving less money annually'), because the editorial independence of the BBC is guaranteed by that Charter).

 

That Royal Charter posits the following public services as the prime function and purpose of the BBC:

• 
  
• Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
  
• Promoting education and learning;
  
• Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
  
• Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
  
• Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
  
• Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services.
  

The BBC delivers all of that and more, in my book. But no commercial TV channel is ever going to have any of the above in its mission statement, never mind do anything about delivering them: their sole and main purpose is, like any capitalistic organisation, to make a return for their shareholder. That's not meant as a "lefty" judgement or comment at all, but just as a simple and objective statement of fact.

you mean you can do a good cut and paste job

[bigsexydoug]

Option 3 for me but prison is a bit draconian.

 

The licence fee is pretty good value. Most of my time watching and listening is taken up by the BBC. I dislike adverts.

 

Genuinely I see YOUR point, I dislike adverts myself ( the BBC also show many adverts, for their own shows and product placement) but imagine you were in my shoes with nothing and I mean nothing to watch on the BBC at all, I bet you wouldn't be happy to pay £145 for my sky bill would you ?