BBC, Value for money?

richp007

Distinguished Member
The thing about that show is people could bicker all day long, but as soon as someone says, "Isn't Mrs. Brown's Boys sh*te?"....

.....suddenly everyone is on the same page and the best of friends. Few things on earth are as effective at uniting.
 

dmpzsn

Well-known Member
I had a knock on the door once a few years back. The guy seem surprised when I let him in and even more surprised when I showed him there was no aerial connected to the TV, nor a sky/virgin box. He left after that and besides an email checking I still do not watch live TV I haven't heard from them since.
A few years ago for some reason I paid for my license on the first reminder, probably a month early.

A little while after the original expiry date I had a knock on the door, it was the licensing police telling me I didn't have a licence, to say they didn't know what to say when I produced my very valid license is an understatement. All they could say was their records weren't up to date.:blush::rotfl:

I now don't renew till the last minute.
 

Lee

Moderator
That show is about as funny as ball cancer.
You're right, ball cancer isn't funny but Mrs Browns boys is. It has been the funniest show on telly over the years and the only thing I watch on the BBC*

* I don't count EastEnders that is on in the background when my wife watches it. Cutting my hand and sticking it in a tank of piranhas would be less painful than watching that drivel.
 

Thug

Moderator
This thread has just reminded me that i have probably not watched anything on the BBC for (at a guess) 6 months (but it could quite easily be a year or more).
Me not knowing and forgetting means i have not missed it in the slightest.
I don't listen to any BBC radio either.
Is it value for money? Not for me it isn't.
 

Desmo

Distinguished Member
Still don't miss TV. Not watched anything since October last year and can't think of anything I miss and Youtube, Netflix, Prime and Disney+ take care of all our viewing. And best of all, I can drop any of those paid services whenever I like. I have the choice.
 

Garrett

Moderator
You're right, ball cancer isn't funny but Mrs Browns boys is. It has been the funniest show on telly over the years and the only thing I watch on the BBC*
That's not saying much, there announcements are way funnier, charging over 75s for the TV license and giving Zoe Ball short of a million raise for loosing a million weekly listeners. Switched the radio on this morning only day in the week I do for 1 hour at that time and find she off. Nice work if you can get it.
For many years I been a supporter of the licensee fee but after the above and thinking the amount of time I watch Prime and get there services and what I pay there's no comparison and not good value for money, they even have some imported series apparently shown first on BBC III because they repeating in on BBC1 with absolutely massive on screen graphics BBC III, why have them on goodness knows why when not shown on BBC II!. A most if not all of first shown on BBC II! are shown with with the onscreen logo on BBC 1. I thought the idea was for channel identification.
Also with all the repeats as some new one are not being made just getting a bunch of old ones cutting and parting them together, or just sticking new commentaries on them, I think there should be a license fee reduction.
 
Last edited:

John

Moderator
It's the government that has decided not to pay for the TV licences, not the BBC
 

Garrett

Moderator
The over 75s free licence was only brought in in 2000 so hardly been around for a long time
20 years not a long time! time to be born grow up get married or not and start a family of your own.
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
It's the government that has decided not to pay for the TV licences, not the BBC
Yep - it's like running a bakery - one that's been open for decades. One day local rich guy starts to come in every day with £100 and says "if any old folk come in for bread and cakes - pay for it from this". Happy days - the old folk don't need to pay anymore.

But then one day he doesn't come in any more - he's gone broke.

Now all the old folk are complaining at the baker not giving them free bread and cakes. I expect he is regretting not sending the rich guy away in the first place.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
It's the government that has decided not to pay for the TV licences, not the BBC
Not exactly. That is just half the story.

Yes the government wanted to hand back the responsibility of the over 75 licences so they did a deal.

I’ve recently listened to the outgoing director general saying that he felt like resigning at the time of the deal - BS, he could have rejected the deal but he lapped it up.

The BBC got in return
  • To make watching iPlayer require a TV licence
  • To allow the licence fee to be increased each year in line with CPI
  • To phase out BBC’s obligation to fund the national broadband programme
  • Charter renewal
The BBC take over of the free over 75 licences to be phased in over three years.

The BBC took all that was offered to them but as soon as they were due to do their bit of the bargain they reneged.

Whether the deal was good or not, the BBC took it. They could have rejected it but it had bits that they wanted so they snapped it up.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Not exactly. That is just half the story.

Yes the government wanted to hand back the responsibility of the over 75 licences so they did a deal.

I’ve recently listened to the outgoing director general saying that he felt like resigning - BS, he could have rejected the deal but he lapped it up.

The BBC got in return
  • To make watching iPlayer require a TV licence
  • To allow the licence fee to be increased in line with CPI
  • To phase out BBC’s obligation to fund the national broadband programme
  • Charter renewal
The BBC take over of the free over 75 licences to be phased in over three years.

The BBC took all that was offered to them but as soon as they were due to do their bit of the bargain they reneged.

Whether the deal was good or not, the BBC took it. They could have rejected it but it had bits that they wanted so they snapped it up.

Cheers,

Nigel
What I don't understand about this, is why does the government allow the BBC to backtrack on the deal.
They took the things they wanted, upon the agreement they would fund the over 75's in 3 year time.
Now that time is here and they don't want to.

Why don't the government tell them they cannot do this.
And stop them legally. That was the deal and they have to stick to it.
This is the bit I can't understand.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
What I don't understand about this, is why does the government allow the BBC to backtrack on the deal.
They took the things they wanted, upon the agreement they would fund the over 75's in 3 year time.
Now that time is here and they don't want to.

Why don't the government tell them they cannot do this.
And stop them legally. That was the deal and they have to stick to it.
This is the bit I can't understand.
I suppose what can they do about it. The BBC haven’t broken the law, they have reneged on a commercial agreement. If it were another commercial organisation dealing with the BBC then maybe they would take legal action but the government is not going to get into that sort of thing with one of their own.

It’s a bit like you having a deal with a family relation, you do your bit but then they renege, what would you, could you, do about it.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:

DemonAV

Distinguished Member
My final point regarding the licence fee is this. If this thread on AVF is accurate regarding the nations attitude towards the licence fee then it would be a resounding no. The majority do not believe its either value for money or Its relevant.
 

Thug

Moderator
My final point regarding the licence fee is this. If this thread on AVF is accurate regarding the nations attitude towards the licence fee then it would be a resounding no. The majority do not believe its either value for money or Its relevant.
Its a shame this wasn't a poll.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
My final point regarding the licence fee is this. If this thread on AVF is accurate regarding the nations attitude towards the licence fee then it would be a resounding no. The majority do not believe its either value for money or Its relevant.
I suspect that looking at AVF alone would be a very skewed demographic.

I’m pretty sure that if there were a referendum “should we abolish the licence fee” then that would be a strong yes.

But if the referendum were worded “should we abolish the BBC” then I doubt that would be a yes.

And that is the crux of the problem. There is absolutely no way the BBC could survive in anything like its current form without some form of licence fee or tax.

What is killing the BBC, and maybe what they weren’t expecting, is the increasing numbers of people that say they can do without live TV. And ultimately that will seal the BBC’s fate unless something is done.

I suspect that the BBC and the government are frantically trying to think of a way to continue financing the BBC, two ways I can see that would work are
  • make the licence required for all streaming of commercial entertainment (by which I mean streaming provided by commercial companies whose primary business is the supply of TV and Movie like entertainment - so not Youtube or talking to your aunty in Australia)
  • a broadband tax
I’d put my money on the first option, cheapest and simplest to implement, it would however, create massive resentment towards the BBC.

When the BBC accepted the deal to pay for the free over-75 licences, I think the jewel in the deal for them was to allow iPlayer to be licensed as they saw that as the first step, setting a precedent, for all streaming to be licensed - watch this space.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:

aVdub

Distinguished Member
Its a shame this wasn't a poll.



 

Thug

Moderator
My take on the TV licence...

Imagine sitting at home and some junk mail comes through your door.
This junk mail has come to you for no other reason than due to you owning a letter box.
This junk mail you can either bin or read it.
You are then billed for this junk mail.
The issue is, if you bin it you have to prove that you haven't read any of it and therefor not required to pay for it.
Just saying you have not read it is not good enough, they want to come around and for you to prove to them that you are not reading it.
If you cant, there is a chance that they will take you to court for not paying for the junk mail that they have sent you, that you haven't asked for, or even wanted in the first place, all due to you owning a letter box.
Your letter box is used for other tings that you DO want, so you cant get rid of it (and why should you), but still have to justify why you don't have to pay for the junk mail.

Thats how i feel about the TV and radio licence.
 
Last edited:

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
As per the other thread you need to tell them you don't need a TV licence which I linked to.

If you don't tell them that's when the letters start.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Marantz SR7015 & NAD T 778 AVR + Mission LX2 MKII Speaker Reviews, AV & Film News and More

Latest News

LG SIGNATURE OLED R TV now available in South Korea
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG Display teams with Disney for OLED Projects
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Campfire Audio updates Vega and Dorado earphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Oppo launches S1 and R1 4K smart TVs
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Lithe Audio AirPlay 2 ceiling speakers world's first
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom