You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Maybe sometimes, but saying you don’t like some part of its output is like criticizing the NHS for providing cancer treatment
Not really - and I'm criticising George Monbiot's taste rather than saying the Beeb shouldn't be allowed to make their bland, formulaic dramas.
Surely unstreamed Freeview has a limited future itself? Will that content not be fully streamed in the not too distant future?
Take for example this year’s coverage of the Olympics, is that what we have to look forward to with the BBC’s budget cut? I’m not a fan of Clare Balding but she’s better than the highlight reel from a couple of random sports that no one else could be bothered to televise. Then what, in another decade sports funding (inc cycling) gets cut because it’s not on free to view TV anymore and no one GAS.
IIRC the BBC take more people to the Olympics than any other similar organisation, it's disproportionate to to unique coverage they produce.
However the loss of the licence fee doesn't necessarily mean loss of a free to air TV channel from the BBC, we already have defined events which must be on free to air TV. No suggestions that it will change.
Surely unstreamed Freeview has a limited future itself? Will that content not be fully streamed in the not too distant future?
Long way off, not everyone has affordable broadband access sufficient for streaming and won't have for a long time.
Plus it's great for emergency communications etc
You only need a license for live TV and iPlayer IIRC, neither of which we use.
We get my news from various online sources (Guardian, FT, Economist, NYT, Le Monde etc) and we watch Netflix / Amazon Prime.
You need a licence if you watch TV live on any streaming service so you can't, for example, watch live tennis on Prime.
Correct.
You need a TV licence for two things: watching, recording or streaming TV programmes live as they are broadcast; and iPlayer. If you only watch say catch-up TV or on-demand 'box sets,' you don't need a licence.
If you only watch say catch-up TV or on-demand ‘box sets,’ you don’t need a licence.
... and which, really, has been the writing on the wall for the TV Licence for a long time. It's becoming increasingly difficult to define "TV" and its actual use case is declining. When did you last have to dash home because this week's episode of your favourite show was starting? People just don't do that any more, it's going to be as alien to Generation Alphas as taping the Top 40 off the radio (and trying to edit out the DJ).
My other half watches vacuous nonsense pretty much as background noise but I very rarely watch live TV any more. I quite like Pointless and I watch Only Connect on iPlayer, that's probably about it. Oh, and my guilty pleasure which is Death In Paradise, most of which I binge-watched on demand back when I had Sky. I think this year is the first time I've watched it as broadcast.
On the other hand, I have a to-watch list as long as my arm on Netflix; I have an Amazon Prime account which to be honest I rarely use as anything I actually want to watch on there costs money on top of the subscription; I have a media server where I've ripped (or torrented) all my old DVDs / BDs. Ironically, I'm paying for 200+ channels on Virgin cable but I've probably watched it three times in the last year because it's in the wrong room.
I don't begrudge the licence fee if only for things like whatever the latest Attenborough is, ripping my eyeballs out in UHD on my Big Daft Telly™. And I really would miss Only Connect. But I'm surprised it's lasted this long.
When did you last have to dash home because this week’s episode of your favourite show was starting?
Strangely enough, only a couple of weeks ago as Star Trek Discovery is now on Pluto TV (no, I'd not heard of it either) and they don't have an On Demand service.
I don’t begrudge the licence fee if only for things like whatever the latest Attenborough is, ripping my eyeballs out in UHD on my Big Daft Telly™.
I'd happily pay extra on top of my license fee if they would sort out the fact their beautiful UHD HLG HDR stuff (and in fact anything via iPlayer) is only available with poverty-spec stereo audio.
I recently upgraded my TV to even bigger and dafter, along with a decent audio system, and the problem is now that dropping from 5.1 down to 2.0 audio is more of a hardship than dropping from UHD/HDR down to HD, so I've gone back to watching everything as recording of broadcasts.
Star Trek Discovery is now on Pluto TV
This I knew.
they don’t have an On Demand service
This I did not. Bollocks.
dropping from 5.1 down to 2.0 audio
I didn't know about that either, but my 5.1 system hasn't been reconnected since moving house. I really miss it but it just wouldn't look right in the new place and it'd probably get me shouted at. Plus it's only HDMI 1.4 so I'm knackered for external 4k sources. I don't really know what to do with it if I'm honest.
@bazzer she was repeatedly warned by her aides about his dodgy behaviour making him unsuitable for a knighthood, the official records for this have been released publicly.
There are no published records showing she knew specifically of his numerous crimes against children but given that a) he wasn't exactly coy about it, and b) it was an open secret in the entertainment industry, and c) she had access to any notes the intelligence services may have had on him (remember this is someone who regularly attended Chequers etc), it's scarcely credible to suggest she didn't know.
Remember this is the lady who was close personal friends with Augusto Pinochet, a man who made regular use of a torture facility run by a nazi child-abusing cult leader, among other things. So maybe Saville didn't seem so terrible in comparison?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48318295
There is very little innovation, and that is partly driven by the fact that the BBC does not need to excel to earn its money.
Nice example of free-market dogma but how come the BBC used to excel in many areas then?
the BBC does not need to excel
...
how come the BBC used to excel
This is begging the question. Are both of these assumptions true, that the BBC used to excel and now it doesn't? How are we measuring this?
He also said:
I think its central problem is that it can no longer claim to be anywhere near the best in several areas.
He implicitly suggests that they used to be at least somewhere near the best in several areas. My response was to his whole post not just the bit that I quoted previously. I thought that was obvious, captain trying-to-pick-holes-in-stuff-for-no-real-reason.
My argument was that they could 'claim' to be the best in several areas. Whether they actually were is something else. Certainly, before the advent of Sky and then streaming services, there were precious few alternatives anyway.
I thought that was obvious, captain trying-to-pick-holes-in-stuff-for-no-real-reason.
The reason is, it's a trope. My generation still rag on "Millennials" some of whom are now in their 40s, my gran used to wax on about it was so much better in the olden days when you could leave your door unlocked. It's easy to go "it used to be so much better..." and there may well be some truth in that, but if your question is "why?" then you first have to answer "was it actually?" or it's an impossible question.
I'll put some meat on this on a follow-up post.
I am one of those lumpen proles who still pays my TV licence. I consider it a voluntary donation/taxation to something I think is worth having, from somebody who can afford it. In the same sentiment, I started donating £20 worth of food each week to the local food bank when UK Gov withdrew the universal credit top-up to people on benefits. I know the government should fund it, but they aren't, the same applies I think.
They are the best at doing everything fairly well.
Whether they should continue to do everything, I don't honestly know.
I know they spend an enormous amount of money on tech and on managers, and as a content person I'd like to see cuts there before I saw them in programming - but it never works like that, does it?
I would pay £13 a month a subscription to BBC sounds alone. Its content is brilliant and as someone who spends a lot of time walking my dog, I absorb hours of Sounds content every week.
It’s easy to go “it used to be so much better…”
Define better. When it used to be incredibly well funded and prestigious and was one of the only shows (ha) in town making anything like quality programming it was definitely better compared to everything else available at the time. Better than now? How would you compare? But reducing funding/job cuts combined with increased threats from the government would seem to be unlikely ways of driving quality up.
I mean BBC comedy now is arguably better now because it isn't just the Cambridge footlights or whatever being gifted prime TV slots, but it's extremely hard to quantify.
I don’t understand why the beeb doesn’t stream its content globally.
There’s seven billion people, aching to speak eastenders.
We could have near as damnit content in the uk.
Just let the rest of the tribe pick up the bill.
Instead, the beeb mires itself down by tendering it’s content to various countries.
State Aid rules, although I suspect that is on the list for ripping up soon.
I don’t understand why the beeb doesn’t stream its content globally.
Because they can sell it instead.
Define better [and] Better than now? How would you compare? [and] it’s extremely hard to quantify.
And this is exactly my point which you were grumping about, yes. It is hard to quantify. But if you can't do so or at least try to then it becomes a brexit-level argument; "why it was better?" can be readily answered with "it wasn't."
When it used to be incredibly well funded and prestigious and was one of the only shows (ha) in town making anything like quality programming it was definitely better compared to everything else available at the time
That's because "everything else available at the time" was ITV, or prior to that "nothing at all".
What has the BBC done historically that they aren't doing as well today? They were likely kings of light entertainment, but there's little demand for the next Two Ronnies. Sitcoms? One of the Beeb's most popular exports is - or at least, was last time I looked - Fawlty Towers; it's hard to believe now, but that was just 12 episodes long. Today's demand is for reality fluff like GBBO and Strictly and whilst they're probably not to the tastes of people seeking "quality programming" they are incredibly popular. Drama? We're still doing that, the BBC is a world leader at shorter-form series, Sherlock was massive. Family shows, Doctor Who is probably the BBC's single most lucrative export. Documentaries, Attenborough as discussed, Panorama I think it was I caught randomly the other day and was excellent.
It's easy to rose-tint but there was a lot of shit on TV back when we had three channels, let alone three hundred. My grandparents used to bemoan that it was a waste of time because there was nothing on back when I was a kid. Are we mourning the loss of relevant "quality programming" like It Ain't Half Hot Mum or Till Death Us Do Part?
What did the BBC excel at in earlier years that there is still demand for today but it's no longer doing? About the only thing I can think of is news reporting. Oh, and sport, which I don't overly care about but is easy to understand, all the big events have been bought up by companies with more money.
(apologies if some of that wasn't the BBC, it was off the top of my head as I couldn't be bothered to google every example.)
I don’t understand why the beeb doesn’t stream its content globally.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Worldwide
I suspect the rational is UK License fee payers paid for the content, so the BBC should try and make as much money as it can licensing that content abroad to help keep the license fee down etc.
If it just streamed it worldwide for free it would have less money and therefore produce less content.
Instead, the beeb mires itself down by tendering it’s content to various countries.
It what way does it mire itself down? No different to any other TV production company (there are 100s, you sell your wares to the highest bidder).
Oh, this is handy. Google filters this stuff, you can generate lists by decade.
https://www.google.com/search?q=1970s+bbc+sitcoms
I've fairly arbitrarily picked the 1970s because those are my earliest memories of TV as a kid. If your halcyon "at the time" was some other time period then you're going to have to specify that.
They are the best at doing everything fairly well.
...and some things better than anyone else - looking at you Radio 3.
As usual I agree with George
george says you shouldn't fly because of the environment... 😀
Sherlock was massive
The French dubbed version was ace, I had a WTF moment when I watched an episode in English, happily the remote control allowed switching back to French.
What has the BBC done historically that they aren’t doing as well today? They were likely kings of light entertainment, but there’s little demand for the next Two Ronnies. Sitcoms? One of the Beeb’s most popular exports is – or at least, was last time I looked – Fawlty Towers
Not really sure what point you're trying to make re Fawtlty Towers but if you take the example of comedy, look at lists of the best comedy shows of all time - a great many of them were made by the BBC but how many of them were made recently? Isn't recency bias meant to be a thing?
I'm aware that it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that 'everything was better in my day' but it's surely just a different type of faulty thinking to assume that because this bias is a thing therefore nothing was better in the past than it is now.
What did the BBC excel at in earlier years that there is still demand for today but it’s no longer doing?
Factual documentaries. For example, Horizon used to be very technical and in-depth detail, it's now made for the lowest common denominator of intelligence and is more about nice camerawork and speaking to people at a primary school level of intelligence than in-depth science
This is an article about an interview by a Sky journalist today. The interview itself is on YouTube somewhere. But my point is that since Eddie Mair destroyed Johnson a few years ago, no BBC journalist been this wiling to put the boot in.
Not really sure what point you’re trying to make re Fawtlty Towers
Sorry, I could have been clearer here perhaps. It's held perhaps as typical of the BBC's output of that era, but there were two series of six episodes each. In isolation that's not typical, it's an outlier.
look at lists of the best comedy shows of all time – a great many of them were made by the BBC but how many of them were made recently?
How recently?
https://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+sitcoms+2000s
https://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+sitcoms+2010s
There's a few classics there.
Isn’t recency bias meant to be a thing?
If comparing like with like perhaps? I guess it's going to be less of a thing if the fact is that people are turning over from comedies in favour of talent shows and people in glass coffins filled with scorpions. Tastes change, nostalgia is a thing also, Del Boy falling through the bar routinely tops "funniest TV moments" roundup shows but if it were made last year would that still be the case? I honestly don't know.
How much dross was there in OF&H that we've conveniently forgotten? I'm a big fan of Monty Python but going back through the full DVD box was an eye-opener, the signal-to-noise ratio was shockingly low. Christ, spend five minutes on the Internet around Doctor Who groups, "it's not as good as it used to be, something about Tom Baker or John Pertwee" - well, I've rewatched a lot of the old classic who and great swathes of it are absolutely terrible.
I’m aware that it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that ‘everything was better in my day’ but it’s surely just a different type of faulty thinking to assume that because this bias is a thing therefore nothing was better in the past than it is now.
Wholeheartedly agreed. It's a mistake to blindly assume either way.
Factual documentaries. For example, Horizon used to be very technical and in-depth detail, it’s now made for the lowest common denominator of intelligence and is more about nice camerawork and speaking to people at a primary school level of intelligence than in-depth science
So, they've made it more accessible to a much broader audience? (-:
@cougar & footflaps.
By ‘stream globally’, I was suggesting that the beeb establishes a global subscription service like Netflix or Disney.
The revenue accrued would at the least subsidise the uk subscribers.
BBC Licence fee. One per household
How many households in the UK - just over 28,000,000
Income to the bbc from those households = 4,396,000,000 and thats before we add in commercial licences. I'd be surprised if its not kicking the arse off £5 billion. Possibly even higher.
So how much of that 5 billion goes to the treasury in taxes ?.
Chances of the BBC licence fee being scrapped ?
ZERO.
By ‘stream globally’, I was suggesting that the beeb establishes a global subscription service like Netflix or Disney.
Oh, right. That makes sense.
Would people buy it, do you think? Or have they missed the boat a little?
I’d be surprised if its not kicking the arse off £5 billion. Possibly even higher.
It's not, but you're not a million miles off. Here:
So how much of that 5 billion goes to the treasury in taxes ?.
Chances of the BBC licence fee being scrapped ?
ZERO.
Income tax and national insurance to start with, and a lot will (should!) be higher rate payers.
…and some things better than anyone else – looking at you Radio 3.
And Radio 4. And 6 Music. And Cbeebies. And celebrities prancing about in ballgowns for nans to watch with their grandkids.
…and some things better than anyone else – looking at you Radio 3.
FWIW Spanish Radio Clásica is just as good, which is perhaps unsurprising as a lot of their live concerts are the same European broadcasts.
I find it heartening that the Tory party hate the Beeb for being left leaning, and similarly Owen Jones thinks it's chock full of right wingers. I think the Beeb does a reasonable job of threading a passage through choppy waters.
I think the Beeb does a reasonable job of threading a passage through choppy waters.
You may think that, but you'd be wrong, just as the Tory party are wrong on so many issues.
The television will not be revolutionised
Are they other channels on BBC that is worth watching other than BBC News and weather? Coz that's the only programme I watch on BBC. I think they should keep this programme and give the rest up for subscription. It will certainly be more expensive if subscription is put in place, coz that is how the world works nowadays. I think I have seen most of what needs to be seen in this world now so there is really nothing new to watch ...
Jeez, you guys still watching TV? The BBC is garbage but then so is most of popular culture. No lament for any potential demise here; I'm happy with music and books.
Oh wow cool edgy alternative guy has arrived
Music and books aren't part of popular culture?
Jeez, you guys still watching TV? The BBC is garbage but then so is most of popular culture. No lament for any potential demise here; I’m happy with music and books.
Looks like we got ourselves a reader. Username checks out.
If that's a Bill Hicks quote jambo you forgot the quotation marks!
Are they other channels on BBC that is worth watching other than BBC News and weather?
I'd have said their news has been weak for years (although to be fair I probably only watch it in Hotels / bars etc). Channel 4 seems to have taken their crown as most reliable news provider, I thought John Snow was excellent.
BBC4!
Their arts documentaries are outstanding, Andrew Graham Dixon, Waldemar Januzchek and the absolute don of television documentaries, the imperious Jonathan Meades. They are the absolute benchmark for documentaries.
Watching Sky Arts as I type, it's good it not a patch on the kind of output BBC4 has been responsible for, though their budgets has been severely restricted in recent years and there's a lot more repeats than there used to be.
Oh wow cool edgy alternative guy has arrived
LOL!
BBC4!
Essentially a repeats channel, they aren't commissioning new stuff for it
Random thread resurection, but we were actually visited by a TV license person this morning. Sadly, he / she didn't so much as knock on the door, just posted through a 'You've been visited' hand filled in form.
Have to say I'm a bit dissapointed they didn't even knock.
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51881194996_78e6440b86.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51881194996_78e6440b86.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2n3yFL1 ]TV License visit[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
No way! haha! I thought they always were, and continued to be myth. Anyway, do you have a license?
Anyway, do you have a license?
No, but neither do we have a TV....
No, but neither do we have a TV….
And you don’t have a device you can stream on where you watch TV?
And you don’t have a device you can stream on where you watch TV?
Or radio.....?
My car needs a TV licence?
(Hint: you don't need a TV licence to listen to the radio)
I'm really surprised to find a link between anti BBC rhetoric/Social media baiting and 55 Tufton Street, London SW1.
You are JHJ and ICMFP
'To avoid another visit, please act within seven days.'
Do they check whether you've joined the local am dram society, or will reciting the Parrot sketch in the front room do?
And you don’t have a device you can stream on where you watch TV?
Have plenty of devices which could but never watch BBC (or any TV channels). NB You don't need a license to own a device capable of streaming TV, only to use it to do so.
Netflix is pretty much all we watch and not a lot of that either - I've been watching Foundation for several weeks now and only got as far as Episode 4.
Random thread resurection, but we were actually visited by a TV license person this morning. Sadly, he / she didn’t so much as knock on the door, just posted through a ‘You’ve been visited’ hand filled in form.
They have told a commons select committee that they expect to double prosecutions now we coming out if the pandemic
They'll probably credit check you and realise you aren't vulnerable and ignore you and go for the easy pickings
Previous years I've just rung up and told them I don't have a TV and they leave you alone, but I can't be arsed anymore and am quite curious to see what happens if you don't....
Sounds like a load of pointless hassle created by an annoying virtue signaller to me. Just tell them, instead of us. Fuss over.
Have plenty of devices which could but never watch BBC (or any TV channels). NB You don’t need a license to own a device capable of streaming TV, only to use it to do so.
Correct! Then you have nothing to worry about.
“They’re chasing me for VED, but the joke is on them… I’ve taken it off the road, but I’m not telling them it’s SORN, I’m telling you lot instead… I want to see what they do. Isn’t working as a civil servant fun. Getting to waste all that time and money because of my japes.”
Isn’t working as a civil servant fun.
They actually work for Capita, although probably indirectly eg temps / sub contractors.
“They’re chasing me for VED
There is a clear legal distinction between the two scenarios (although I'm sure you don't care in the slightest). With VED you are obliged to tell them whereas with TV you're not.
an annoying virtue signaller to me
You're airing your insecurities in public again....
My mother in law moved in to a new build retirement complex last week. Over 70s only apartments you know the type.
There were 4 mildly threatening letters from tv licensing waiting for her in the mat on move in day…!
I felt like a right rebel for the 24 hours between plugging the tv in and informing them that she had moved house!
Must be slim pickings I guess finding addresses without tv licenses
Must be slim pickings I guess finding addresses without tv licenses
I doubt it. All the address data will be available to them, cross reference with credit checking agencies and you get a list of easy targets. Poor area, low credit rating, suddenly stop paying, they will focus on these rather than the long-term no licence addresses
Must be slim pickings I guess finding addresses without tv licenses
Or they’re automatically generated.
With VED you are obliged to tell them whereas with TV you’re not.
You’re not legally obliged, but it takes seconds, less time than to tell us you haven’t.
You’re not legally obliged, but it takes seconds, less time than to tell us you haven’t.
You know what the S in SORN stands for, right? You can be fined for having a vehicle which is neither taxed nor SORNed. The same is not true for TV licensing.
I have a TV licence, I think it's good value, but if I didn't need one then I wouldn't be notifying them because of their bully-boy tactics.
Yes, I know the difference. I meant no legal obligation to declare that you don’t need a TV license. I was acknowledging/agreeing that difference exists. But taking a public stand not to notify, rather than just doing it, achieves what exactly? Causing cost and hassle to make a point.