Why O why.....

[richardkm]

Originally Posted by Wild-Woman

Yes. I've got withdrawal symptoms.
We need- Earlysummerwatch
Midsummerwatch
Latesummerwatch
Earlyautumnwatch
Autumnwatch
Earlywinterwatch
Midwinterwatch
Latewinterwatch
Springwatch

Sorted. Over to the Beeb to arrange it then...................

Yes, but only if they get rid of Oddie.

[Carl]

Originally Posted by hairymunky

Tonight Mrs Munky is eagerly awaiting BB, and I'm in the dining room,
trying to figure out how to get enough focus on the web cam to
film the birds feeding
Only good thing on is the second series of Rome.

Finally someone notices good tv when they see it lol kinding.But have to agree mate i just love watching rome loved the last bit when he just ch.opped his head right clean off lol.i would`ve got that knife and ran it across his quads and then his arms and then chopped his head off lol can`t wait for sunday.

[Maple]

Originally Posted by Ipso Facto

Having travelled the world a fair bit whilst working I have to say that the BBC offers the best service anywhere and it is well worth the license fee in my humble opinion - Personally I would even be willing to pay double!

No doubt some of you would be willing to pay £8-10 to watch a 3 hour film at the local multiplex so if you are willing to pay say £3/hr for entertainment you can afford to switch off the dross and still be quids in with a TV! -

How many of those places around the world you visited, had to actually pay a licence to watch that drivel? Yes we have the choice to switch off the TV if we don't like what's on, but we still have to pay outrageously for the privilege!!

We need to stop harking back and seeing the BBC as a shining example of quality TV, comparing it to elsewhere. Times have moved on - I have a video, DVD, PS2, digital box, etc attached to my TV and have access to over a dozen other channels, you can watch your own home made movies, look at your own photos, read email, connect to the internet even - why am I paying the BBC for this???

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Maple

How many of those places around the world you visited, had to actually pay a licence to watch that drivel? Yes we have the choice to switch off the TV if we don't like what's on, but we still have to pay outrageously for the privilege!!

We need to stop harking back and seeing the BBC as a shining example of quality TV, comparing it to elsewhere. Times have moved on - I have a video, DVD, PS2, digital box, etc attached to my TV and have access to over a dozen other channels, you can watch your own home made movies, look at your own photos, read email, connect to the internet even - why am I paying the BBC for this???

I kind of agree with you but if there is 1 hours decent tele per week (springwatch, natural world, etc) then this equates to 52 hours per year - if we are willing to pay £3 per hour in the cinema then this equates to £156 worh of tele per year which isnt far short of the licence fee

also how much of the drivel isactually paid for by the licence fee - big brother for example is on a comercial channel which is largely supported by advertising , with BB production being paid for by comercial sponsors.

and finally dont forget that the licence fee doesnt just support the television - some of the money also goes to bbc radio.

[hairymunky]

Radio 2 makes it worth it
then there's Sky @ Night, springwatch, Horizon and a few others,
mixed in with all the other rubbish

[Ipso Facto]

Originally Posted by Maple

How many of those places around the world you visited, had to actually pay a licence to watch that drivel?

... and if you REALLY want to see poor quality TV go there. And then there are those adverts: commercial TV has more than enough over here but there are places where the ads seem to be on every 5 minutes. So, be pleased with the great quality programmes that we do get (mixed in with the drivel) and don't be so ready to knock a great institution - it's only when it has been forced into the commercial stream that you will realise what we had and then regret it ... there will be no going back.

Originally Posted by hairymunky

Radio 2 makes it worth it

... and Radio 4 and the digital services (BBC7 is an absolute must) and the web site with news on tap and "play it again". Oh, and did I mention NO ADVERTS!

Now that I am paying £2.50+ for a pint of beer the license fee seems relatively cheap.

[Maple]

... and if you REALLY want to see poor quality TV go there. And then there are those adverts: commercial TV has more than enough over here but there are places where the ads seem to be on every 5 minutes. So, be pleased with the great quality programmes that we do get (mixed in with the drivel) and don't be so ready to knock a great institution - it's only when it has been forced into the commercial stream that you will realise what we had and then regret it ... there will be no going back.


I think you have completely missed my point!! It is about freedom of choice. The BBC are apparently close to breaching some human rights convention in regards to the freedom and access of information (because they charge us for the privilege). If people think the BBC is the only organisation in the world that produces ‘quality’ viewing and want to pay for that, that’s fine, but I would rather have that choice – BBC should be a subscribed channel(s) and then buying a TV, video, DVD, etc would not require an added licence fee.

You talk about ‘great programming’ but that is a personal opinion, my personal opinion is that the history channel, ITV3 & four etc, etc, can also sometimes show ‘quality’ programming, but without paying the BBC, I can’t watch those.

Don’t forget the BBC already makes enough money from its programmes it sells abroad, etc., to not even require the licence. The licence came at a time when there was only the BBC – over half a century ago! Lets move into the 21st Century, allow people to buy the technology, without having to be charged extra, and then choose what additional channels they want to pay for including the BBC - surely that's not unreasonable??. As a last point, I also object to paying to an organisation that has some very politically biased opinions.

[eeyore]

I think you have kind of answered your own question - if you consider this

Originally Posted by Maple

... and if you REALLY want to see poor quality TV go there. And then there are those adverts: commercial TV has more than enough over here but there are places where the ads seem to be on every 5 minutes.

thats what you get when you have no license fee so that programmes are funded entirely be either adverts (and lots of them) or by pay per view leading to trash tv pitched at the lowest comon denominator

having licence fee funded tv avoids this - in fact i would rather pay a higher licence and have it shared over all terrestial channels if it meant more programmes worthy of the air time and no flipping ad breaks.

[Lincs Yellowbelly]

We've got the excellent Virgin Media, where you can watch literally hundreds of the best TV series at the push of a button spent the weekend watching the first series of Life on Mars as i somehow missed it first time around, now just need to wait for the second series

[Maple]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I think you have kind of answered your own question - if you consider this




thats what you get when you have no license fee so that programmes are funded entirely be either adverts (and lots of them) or by pay per view leading to trash tv pitched at the lowest comon denominator

having licence fee funded tv avoids this - in fact i would rather pay a higher licence and have it shared over all terrestial channels if it meant more programmes worthy of the air time and no flipping ad breaks.

Don't know what you mean by answering my own question. I wanted to know why I pay the BBC to own half a dozen pieces of electrical equipment, why, I pay them to watch dozens of other none BBC channels, why I can't choose whether or not I want to have the BBC as one of my channels and therefore choose to pay for it???

'Having licence fee funded tv avoids this' - no it doesn't - ITV1, ITV2, Channel 4 and 5 etc, all have adverts - we still have to pay the BBC for these, oh, and if you think the BBC doesn't have adverts, time how long their own adds last between programmes!

Too many people think the BBC is some quaint, good old British establishment, like fish and chips and the Royal family, that shouldn’t be touched and remain, in reality, unaccountable. Try seeing the other side of them, having a licence yet being sent quite vicious and intimidating letters saying I will go to prison if I don’t pay them – no apology after months of this. It’s about freedom of choice - something we are getting less and less in this country.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Maple

Don't know what you mean by answering my own question. I wanted to know why I pay the BBC to own half a dozen pieces of electrical equipment, why, I pay them to watch dozens of other none BBC channels, why I can't choose whether or not I want to have the BBC as one of my channels and therefore choose to pay for it???

'Having licence fee funded tv avoids this' - no it doesn't - ITV1, ITV2, Channel 4 and 5 etc, all have adverts - we still have to pay the BBC for these, oh, and if you think the BBC doesn't have adverts, time how long their own adds last between programmes!

Too many people think the BBC is some quaint, good old British establishment, like fish and chips and the Royal family, that shouldn’t be touched and remain, in reality, unaccountable. Try seeing the other side of them, having a licence yet being sent quite vicious and intimidating letters saying I will go to prison if I don’t pay them – no apology after months of this. It’s about freedom of choice - something we are getting less and less in this country.

We are going to have to agree to differ - especially as we dont discuss politics on here - it seems that you have had a bad experience with the licencing authority (who I might point out are not the bbc) mine has been different and i'm sure every other member has had a range of differing experiences too.

[Maple]

Hmmm…I wonder if the BBC has some kind of sublimable mind control messaging going on through their programmes

[Kayleigh]

Originally Posted by Lincs Yellowbelly

We've got the excellent Virgin Media, where you can watch literally hundreds of the best TV series at the push of a button spent the weekend watching the first series of Life on Mars as i somehow missed it first time around, now just need to wait for the second series

We have free view digital we also watch a rerun of life on Mars. We also watch Dr who Fri, Sat and Sun but that's finished now two great programs. Cant wait for Torchwood to come back. I have withdrawal symptoms now. We used to pay sky £40 a month recently and didn't watch anything so gave that up.

[zharca]

Hi,
Back to the original question “why so many crappy reality shows.”

‘Cos they’re cheap and there’s now no money to make TV shows.
Reality equals no writers, no sets, no actors (so no equity rates and, most important no repeat fees), no rehearsals, no retakes, minimal crew. Lighting and sound can be poor because it’s “actuality” and the editing’s easy because whatever happens, happens.

And why is there no money? Because advertising revenues are going down the pan and there are a squillion channels to spread the total over.

Why is there no advertising money? Because the number and quality of the audiences are going down the pan too! Back when there were 4 channels, a big hit show could deliver an engaged audience of 10-15 million peak, now a successful series scrapes maybe 4 million and a lot of that 1/3 size audience will channel-hop or time-shift during the adverts. So, as an advertiser, why would you pay the rates you used to for a show that doesn’t deliver the punters? There’s now a huge resistance to buying peak-rate TV advertising because it just doesn’t deliver the results any more.

So, cheap programs, crappy programs. Crappy programs, no audiences. No audiences, no ads. No ads, no money. No money, even cheaper programs…the circle goes on.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by zharca

Hi,

So, cheap programs, crappy programs. Crappy programs, no audiences. No audiences, no ads. No ads, no money. No money, even cheaper programs…the circle goes on.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Turn the TV off and spend all night on wab instead - you know it makes sense

[zharca]

Originally Posted by eeyore

Turn the TV off and spend all night on wab instead - you know it makes sense

Well, i spent most of yesterday evening stood in the kitchen watching the garden - Mum Jay brought down two great big gawky kids to show them where to get easy chow, there were a couple of fledgling robins and, between showers, I stuck my nose up against the pond to watch the tiniest, most perfect little new frogs that have just lost their tails. I'm gonna get our "foxcam" rigged up to the TV again if I can sort out the battery. Much better entertainment.

[Carl]

Originally Posted by eeyore

Turn the TV off and spend all night on wab instead - you know it makes sense

Now i`ll be spending most of the time bat detectning now i`ve fianlly got my detector.Testing it out tonight can`t wait, so exicting lol.

[Jez]

Bring back the 70's/80's to me it was the golden era. Programmes i remember watching back when i was knee high. The two ronnies morecambe and wise, monty python, saphire and steel, the saint, the avengers, joe90, ivor the engine, blake 7, starski and hutch, charlies angels, the littliest hobo, Randle and hopkurk, heidi, grange, hill, monkey, the muppets show, the 6million dollar man/ bionic woman, terrahawks, sorry, star fleet, rocket man, laurel and hardy, harol lloyd. the creativity stopped and global warming has become apararent. How eco friendly would shows like these be in this day and age. Do we sacfrice enterainment for the planets sake?

[mrs fish]

I have thoroughly enjoyed the "How britain was made" series which has been on the last few sunday evenings, I like Jonathan? David? Richard? Dimbleby

[oseor]

Originally Posted by mrs fish

I have thoroughly enjoyed the "How britain was made" series which has been on the last few sunday evenings, I like Jonathan? David? Richard? Dimbleby

I watched all of this series, brilliant! It's David I think...

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Maple

Hmmm…I wonder if the BBC has some kind of sublimable mind control messaging going on through their programmes

No they just produce really good stuff well worth the money easily and most people can see this. I think an awful lot of stuff on the UK doc channels (including history) is part funded at least by the BBC.

If they were subscribe only they would have much less money to use this way and the quality is likely to decrease and they may even be forced to go commercial which would lose them more customers it is likely to be a downward spiral and this would be the result of your proposed plan, is that what you would want?
To be stuck in a world of mostly american documentaries and adverts for debt consolidation companies?

[Maple]

You seem to be missing the bigger picture here. Freedom of choice! Maybe a trivial thing to some but to me more important than whether I have a few adverts in a couple more TV channels. However, if you are correct then using your argument that most people can see that they do make ‘quality’ TV, then having those few of us who wish to choose to opt out, would not be a problem and any increased fee resulting from from this wouldn’t be a problem either because you would want to pay for their quality TV, wouldn’t you?

By the way, as a nation, we shouldn’t be so arrogant to presume that since we have the BBC and its licence, that we are the only country in the world that produces ‘good’ programmes. I’ve been and lived abroad and know what’s out there and know that even the US produces some quality stuff but at the end of the day it's marketed on what the consumer wants, and what most of them seem to want is reality shows, tacky quiz shows, soaps and other such no brainer programmes, something the BBC has been only too willing to embrace at our cost.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Maple

but at the end of the day it's marketed on what the consumer wants, and what most of them seem to want is reality shows, tacky quiz shows, soaps and other such no brainer programmes.

but that isnt an arument for comercial advertising funding only because if all our tv channels are funded this way we will wind up with exactly that and nothing else - yes the bbc does put out a fair degree of tat but not in the same degree as most of the commercial channels

pay per view might sustain more intelligent broadcasting for those that can afford it but not everyone can.