To be honest its no shock that the fee is going up. Give it 2 years, and it will be £150 each!!! So what’s this money going to be spent on??? More bloody Eastenders!
Anyway, you know the B&W licence is much much cheaper, who on earth has a black and white TV in this day and age?? If you bought a B&W TV licence, then a few months later got a Colour TV from a friend’s house, would you have to pay out for a Colour Licence?? How do they know if you've got a black and white TV? Do U have to prove it before buying the B&W licence?? I wonder if anyone has ever got away with only paying for a B&W licence but really had a colour TV?
Firstly, BBC4 shouldn't exist. There just aren't enough viewers using it to justify it. Secondly, how much more 'innovation' can happen with BBCi? If you mean wasting more and more money on gimmicky 'interactive TV' services, then I hope they do get reigned in.
Initially, BBC Four seems like a waste, but in context of it's service to the rest of the BBC, it is a great asset. By this I mean that it can be used as a testing bed for many programmes which would otherwise never be commissioned for fear of being too obscure or high-brow. Without BBC Four, insightful, intelligent and fresh programming like 'Travels to The Axis Of Evil', 'Meet the Stans', 'Art Safari' and 'QI' wouldn't exist, or for that matter, fill BBC 2's schedule. Also, possibly the most hilarious programme ever, Curb Your Enthusiasm, wouldn't be available in the UK without Four.
Quote:
I thought the archive was actually a gross mis-quotation on the part of BBC News, and it will actually be limited to clips from a handful of popular shows? That doesn't justify however many more millions they will get out of this £5 price hike. And why is 'newer and better digital encryption' worth spending licence fee money on? The BBC by definition are free (except for the licence fee). Why would they bother researching encryption (and don't say 'to stop people in other countries watching' because they seem quite happy for that to happen - and have even spent god knows how much adapting the licence fee funded bbc.co.uk into 'UK' and 'World' versions)? And in any case afaik the BBC have never nor ever intend to develop encryption technologies.
Firstly, whilst I was wrong about the extent of content on the archive, it still is set to be a great and empowering service, in that anyone with a reasonably fast internet connection won't ever have to record any BBC programmes again, as the BBC is set to make available all programmes for, I think, two weeks after they are aired.
Secondly, I didn't mean that the money would be used to develop encryption to scramble signals for viewers outside the uk, but instead encryption in the sense of MPEG 2 etc.
Quote:
What alone? You mean paying for BBC4, a channel which no one wants
As mentioned earlier, I and many others believe that BBC Four is certainly worth the money, and would honestly argue that after it's recent programming achievements, deserves more.
Quote:
apparant research into encryption which they will not use (and you have just decided they are doing)
Sorry about this. I was quite vague, but it is logical to presume that with more money the BBC will be able to invest more heavily in R&D - better digital encryption standards to suceed MPEG-2 being a rough example.
Quote:
and 'access the entire BBC archive' just won't happen any time soon.
Again, sorry to be impolite, but that is a pretty weak argument. Making the BBC Archive freely available online is one of Dyke's passions, and usually Dyke's demands are satisfied!!
Quote:
And don't bleat on about value for money. It's all well and good to prattle on about how cheap the licence fee is, but the majority of people doing that are also people who earn so much that they don't notice it. To most people, the licence fee is a considerable burden, and ways of reducing it must be found, not year on year above inflation price rises.
Well, it is good value for money. The vast majority of 'poor people' - i.e those living in council housing and/or needing income support, seem to be able to afford cigarettes, alcohol and/or sky, which cost far more annually than the BBC. Also, I disagree that students are any more injusticed than anyone else - many friends at uni go out frequently, smoke, and buy drugs, so I fail to see how £127 per annum is such a terrible price to pay for a constant source of entertainment, news and documentaries. If anything, poor students and people benefit most from the BBC.
im a student and i have to work to support myself, and i pay my licence. any student can afford the licence, and if you dont want to pay it, then i know of a way that you can get out of paying it... don't have a television. if you plead poverty over ten quid a month then people arent going to take students seriously when they complain that they are poor. if you cant afford something, then you cant have it. simple as that.
I'm not saying TV is essential, I'm not saying I won't pay my licence, I'm not saying I can't give it up. So don't give me a lecture like that rubbish you've come out with.
It occurs to me you're being ever so slightly simplistic by delcaring that any student can afford a TV licence. That is utter tripe. Just because you can and I just about can, not
every
student can. Hence the number of people without TVs where I am now - I'd love you tell them they can afford a TV Licence when they skip breakfast and lunch to save money.
My argument is not that the Licence should be scrapped - in fact, quite the opposite. But charging every student the full price is ludicrous. In my corridor alone, if everyone had a TV, the income generated would be approximately £1089.00. Add that to the next ten corridors. Now add that to all the corridors. Now add that to all the corridors in all colleges in my university. Now add that to all the universities.
And I'm so happy you can afford your's by the way, in that case the TV Licence fee for students is completely and utterly justified? Bóllocks.
Without BBC Four, insightful, intelligent and fresh programming like 'Travels to The Axis Of Evil', 'Meet the Stans', 'Art Safari' and 'QI' wouldn't exist, or for that matter, fill BBC 2's schedule. Also, possibly the most hilarious programme ever, Curb Your Enthusiasm, wouldn't be available in the UK without Four.
If the BBC wanted to encourage these sort of programmes, it should have done what they did in the old days and started a special programme which piloted them on BBC2. (eg Comedy Playhouse, Storyboard etc) They certainly don't need a whole channel to do it.
Personally I think there is only a need for BBC3 or 4, and the liscence fee is too high. I hardly ever can find a decent programme on any BBC Channel and when I do there is often a better one on ITV, 4 or five. So to me the television liscence is the passport to watching ITV, 4 and five without them getting any of the money.
I don't use it much, but BBCi is definitely worth the money from most liscence fee payers. I think there is need for BBC1, BBC2, BBC News and CBBC but anything else just pushes up the cost for no reason.
If the BBC wanted to encourage these sort of programmes, it should have done what they did in the old days and started a special programme which piloted them on BBC2. (eg Comedy Playhouse, Storyboard etc) They certainly don't need a whole channel to do it.
In a way I agree, but with 18 different transponders used to broadcast each BBC ONE region on sky, surely one transponder broadcasting a totally unique channel is justifiable? Especially considering that some of it is also screened on BBC TWO.
This is classic evidence of "Empire Building" on the part of the BBC.
I really think a government review of the BBC's expenses is justified, because nobody's really sure what they do with all of their money and nobody's really sure if it's something that the majority of British people want them to do.
And since it's the British people who finance the BBC in its entirety, they should have the final say over what sort of services it provides (not Greg Dyke, not some fancy marketing research consultant, not some engineer who wants to further develop BBCi's ability with interactive services).
If the BBC needs this money because they're finding that BBC3 and BBC4 are more expensive than they planned, then someone should be fired for making a bad budget.
If nobody made a budget for the various components of BBC, then most of upper management should be sacked.
And, if this hike in the fee is "necessary" for some expansion programme that the BBC has, then shouldn't the electorate approve this programme before they are required to pay for it, no questions asked?
Finally, I disagree wholeheartedly with people who claim that "if you can't afford it, you have to accept that you cannot have it." That's a fine claim for private services, but the BBC is a public service. And since when are the poor members of the public less entitled to public services than the better-off members of the public?
And I'm so happy you can afford your's by the way, in that case the TV Licence fee for students is completely and utterly justified? Bóllocks.[QUOTE]
I cant afford mine in the sense that I would be better off without it, but it's a bill that needs to be paid and as a mature adult I realise that it needs to be paid. I've been on the bones of my bum enough times this year but the licence is just a fact of life that needs to be paid. If students say they cant afford it it's usually because they spend far too much money on other "ahem" things, or that they cant be bothered with getting a job. What is they problem with taking £30 out of your wages/loan every three months to pay for something that you enjoy so much? If, like my housemate, you dont like TV, then you dont need a licence, but if you dont want to buy one, then go for it! Good luck to you! (Not you personally, glad to hear you're getting one!)
SP
Sput
BBC TV Centre posted:
Quote:
Funnily enough I saw a detector van slowly moving down Oxford road here in Manchester, I thought "I wonder what they have in there that detects TV's".
What do TV detector vans look like?
I swear they had an aerial on top of them and TV licensing written on the sides.
Picture a minibus
Picture blacked out windows (apart from at the front)
Picture the TV Licencing Logo and "DETECTION UNIT" written on the side.
And I'm so happy you can afford your's by the way, in that case the TV Licence fee for students is completely and utterly justified? Bóllocks.
I cant afford mine in the sense that I would be better off without it, but it's a bill that needs to be paid and as a mature adult I realise that it needs to be paid. I've been on the bones of my bum enough times this year but the licence is just a fact of life that needs to be paid. If students say they cant afford it it's usually because they spend far too much money on other "ahem" things, or that they cant be bothered with getting a job. What is they problem with taking £30 out of your wages/loan every three months to pay for something that you enjoy so much? If, like my housemate, you dont like TV, then you dont need a licence, but if you dont want to buy one, then go for it! Good luck to you! (Not you personally, glad to hear you're getting one!)
I have one and have done for the past 4 months. I also realise it needs to be paid and is non-essential. That is not the point I am making which is why I am so irritated by your initial argument that EVERY student CAN afford one and therefore end of story, and your secondary argument that students should drop all else if they want to watch some telly.
The point I am making is the fact it is full price for students. There are NO concessions of any sort (apart from a deduction for the summer, where you must apply for a rebate, and ONLY if that period neatly ties in with the period June, July, August). There is NO reason why it should be full price. There is NO reason why each person in my corridor out of the thousands in the UK has to pay to watch TV at full price.
