NG
Seriously though - is £116 / year too much to pay for BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC News 24, BBC Radios 1,2,3,4,5 Live, BBC 1Xtra, 5 Live Sports Xtra, 6Music, 7, plus national and local radio services, Ceefax, and BBCi ?
How much does the average TV licence-fee paying household pay in advertising towards ITV1, ITV2, Channel Four, Five, commercial local and national radio, as well as all the Pay TV channels that also carry advertising? (I may or may not subscribe to Sky One - but if I buy something that is advertised on Sky One I am subsidising viewing of it...)
I agree that logically the TV Licence is not, superficially, the fairest means of paying for services, however it does work... It is simpler and cheaper to support than subscription services, and the quality and breadth of broadcasting it supports is pretty damn good.
Sure there are likely to be some areas of output that individuals don't appreciate, or benefit from ( I don't have kids - so don't directly benefit from CBBC/CBeebies or Childrens programmes on BBC TV or Radio - but I accept they should exist!) - but as long as there are other areas of output that are relevant to viewers and listeners then the chances are people will find something.
As to the argument that BBC Three and BBC Four output would be at home on BBC Two... How many hours a day to people think BBC Two broadcasts for?
The Proms TV broadcasts - making a BBC supported concert season (that would never be produced commercially to the extent that the BBC produce - especially in the area of new music commissioning) accessible Nationwide - alone makes BBC Four a popular choice for a new audience. Sure BBC Two (and occasionally BBC One) will show some TV coverage from the Proms, but BBC Four shows more.
Similarly BBC Three was able to broadcast far more of the Glastonbury music festival than BBC Two was (or would have been able to). Two totally different musical events - but BBC Three and Four allowed more coverage to benefit a certain audience (which was a public service to those who watched)
noggin
Founding member
Nick Harvey posted:
In that case, I think you're entitled to join us for a 6X tomorrow night, noggin!
Seriously though - is £116 / year too much to pay for BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC News 24, BBC Radios 1,2,3,4,5 Live, BBC 1Xtra, 5 Live Sports Xtra, 6Music, 7, plus national and local radio services, Ceefax, and BBCi ?
How much does the average TV licence-fee paying household pay in advertising towards ITV1, ITV2, Channel Four, Five, commercial local and national radio, as well as all the Pay TV channels that also carry advertising? (I may or may not subscribe to Sky One - but if I buy something that is advertised on Sky One I am subsidising viewing of it...)
I agree that logically the TV Licence is not, superficially, the fairest means of paying for services, however it does work... It is simpler and cheaper to support than subscription services, and the quality and breadth of broadcasting it supports is pretty damn good.
Sure there are likely to be some areas of output that individuals don't appreciate, or benefit from ( I don't have kids - so don't directly benefit from CBBC/CBeebies or Childrens programmes on BBC TV or Radio - but I accept they should exist!) - but as long as there are other areas of output that are relevant to viewers and listeners then the chances are people will find something.
As to the argument that BBC Three and BBC Four output would be at home on BBC Two... How many hours a day to people think BBC Two broadcasts for?
The Proms TV broadcasts - making a BBC supported concert season (that would never be produced commercially to the extent that the BBC produce - especially in the area of new music commissioning) accessible Nationwide - alone makes BBC Four a popular choice for a new audience. Sure BBC Two (and occasionally BBC One) will show some TV coverage from the Proms, but BBC Four shows more.
Similarly BBC Three was able to broadcast far more of the Glastonbury music festival than BBC Two was (or would have been able to). Two totally different musical events - but BBC Three and Four allowed more coverage to benefit a certain audience (which was a public service to those who watched)
NH
Nick Harvey
Founding member
Exactly, noggin.
The problem is that the £116 is a known figure, that people can identify and moan about.
The odd penny or two on washing powder or toilet rolls gets lost in the shopping bill, even though it could well amount to £232 a year, or far more.
I hate to say this, in the week that we're getting rid of Mr Campbell, but it's all a matter of spin, not the cost in itself.
The problem is that the £116 is a known figure, that people can identify and moan about.
The odd penny or two on washing powder or toilet rolls gets lost in the shopping bill, even though it could well amount to £232 a year, or far more.
I hate to say this, in the week that we're getting rid of Mr Campbell, but it's all a matter of spin, not the cost in itself.
NG
I know - but people are happy to pay £456 / year for a single full subscription (covering one Sky receiver only - you can only watch one channel at a time for this money) to the full Sky package. Each additional receiver costs another £180 / year, and Sky + also costs an additional £120 / year (though this will be waived if you also pay the £180/year second subscription)
Even the non-movie, non-sport package costs almost twice the licence fee at £222 / year...
I accept that the Sports and Movie rights, plus a lot of the other channels are a draw for this (however many of these also carry advertising so are additionally funded by all consumers). However, apart from Sport, how many, decent, quality, original UK productions (of the kind that the BBC, ITV, C4 or Five commission/produce) are funded out of this ?
noggin
Founding member
Nick Harvey posted:
Exactly, noggin.
The problem is that the £116 is a known figure, that people can identify and moan about.
The odd penny or two on washing powder or toilet rolls gets lost in the shopping bill, even though it could well amount to £232 a year, or far more.
I hate to say this, in the week that we're getting rid of Mr Campbell, but it's all a matter of spin, not the cost in itself.
The problem is that the £116 is a known figure, that people can identify and moan about.
The odd penny or two on washing powder or toilet rolls gets lost in the shopping bill, even though it could well amount to £232 a year, or far more.
I hate to say this, in the week that we're getting rid of Mr Campbell, but it's all a matter of spin, not the cost in itself.
I know - but people are happy to pay £456 / year for a single full subscription (covering one Sky receiver only - you can only watch one channel at a time for this money) to the full Sky package. Each additional receiver costs another £180 / year, and Sky + also costs an additional £120 / year (though this will be waived if you also pay the £180/year second subscription)
Even the non-movie, non-sport package costs almost twice the licence fee at £222 / year...
I accept that the Sports and Movie rights, plus a lot of the other channels are a draw for this (however many of these also carry advertising so are additionally funded by all consumers). However, apart from Sport, how many, decent, quality, original UK productions (of the kind that the BBC, ITV, C4 or Five commission/produce) are funded out of this ?