NEWS: Sky and BBC extend long term partnership

Pogg

Well-known Member
The contract means little incentive for improvements in the resolution and picture quality on BBCIPLAYER which is rubbish.
 

John

Moderator
considering comcast own sky and the clan are not on the board of comcast, i am not sure it matters anymore
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Why is my money being spent on improving the BBC's services on the SKY platform? I'm not a SKY customer, but I do pay the BBC license.

The BBC shouldn't be forming partnerships with any service that isn't available to all license payers. Are SKY making their services available to all BBC license payers for free?
 

white91

Active Member
iPlayer is by far the worst app on my LG tv, however its also the only app I'm legally forced to pay for, I would scrap the BBC
 

Blupetros

Well-known Member
What, worse than My5, All4 or ITVHub? I'm talking TV channel catch up services, not the likes of Netflix, Disney+ etc. If you don't want to pay the licence fee, don't watch live TV and services then.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
The contract means little incentive for improvements in the resolution and picture quality on BBCIPLAYER which is rubbish.

Which other TV catchup service gives you UHD and HLG?


iPlayer is by far the worst app on my LG tv, however its also the only app I'm legally forced to pay for, I would scrap the BBC


Which was Rupert Murdoch's suggestion. Mainly because he saw them as competitors.

I'd not scrap the BBC, I'd increase the license fee so that they can actually afford to do something with the iPLayer. It cannot currently handle anything more than just 2 channel audio because of the way it has been enginerred to handle descriptive audio. THe BBC suggest that it would need to be rebuilt from the ground up to rectify this and have no imediate plans to do this due to the monetary restrictions imposed upon them. You get nice HLG and UHD via iPlayer, but devoid of the 5.1 Dolby audio you'd get on the HD variant of the same content accessed via conventional broadcast TV.

The reason the BBC is crap or why people perceive it this way is because it is under funded.

Services like Disney or Netflix are commercial operations. The BBC is a public broadcasting service.

Don't confuse the BBC with subscription based services. Do you get the news etc via Disney+? The BBC and such services are not comparable and the subscription based streaming services are not obligated to you in the same manner as the BBC.

You are basically legally expected to pay taxes for services such as healthcare, the fire service and the police. Should these be scrapped too? As is the case with these services, if you want better then you have to be realistic about it and pay more taxes. If you are expecting more from the BBC then you'll need to pay more for it and not less. Are the government capping how much SKY charge you? No, but they cap the BBC.
 
Last edited:

pat clancy

Active Member
As I said before,the Beeb should leave broadcast TV as it is ,and have the iPlayer as subscription, £5 or £6 ,then maybe it might improve.
 

white91

Active Member
Which other TV catchup service gives you UHD and HLG?





Which was Rupert Murdoch's suggestion. Mainly because he saw them as competitors.

I'd not scrap the BBC, I'd increase the license fee so that they can actually afford to do something with the iPLayer. It cannot currently handle anything more than just 2 channel audio because of the way it has been enginerred to handle descriptive audio. THe BBC suggest that it would need to be rebuilt from the ground up to rectify this and have no imediate plans to do this due to the monetary restrictions imposed upon them. You get nice HLG and UHD via iPlayer, but devoid of the 5.1 Dolby audio you'd get on the HD variant of the same content accessed via conventional broadcast TV.

The reason the BBC is crap or why people perceive it this way is because it is under funded.

Services like Disney or Netflix are commercial operations. The BBC is a public broadcasting service.

Don't confuse the BBC with subscription based services. Do you get the news etc via Disney+? The BBC and such serrvices are not comparable and the subscription based streaming services are not obligated to you in the same manner as the BBC.

You are basically legally expected to pay taxes for services such as healthcare, the fire service and the police. Should these be scrapped too? As is the case with these services, if you want better then you have to be realistic about it and pay more taxes. If you are expecting more from the BBC then you'll need to pay more for it and not less. Are the government capping how much SKY charge you? No, but they cap the BBC.
Perhaps you forgot the obscene salaries paid out by the BBC, presenters on £1.75m per year! With that waste no wonder it claims to be underfunded. Often programmes are only available for 30 days after broadcast, the app crashes quite often. Its very rare to get a UHD, and news is still often not in HD!

Unfortunately like all public funded bodies, paying more in never equals more out, just bigger salaries and pensions for those in charge.

Also you have not really mentioned the likes of ITV, channel 4 etc who also manage to run and self fund an almost identical service to the BBC
 
Last edited:

dante01

Distinguished Member
The BBC pays the same obscene salaries as every other broadcaster. In fact a presenter is likely to get less working for the BBC than they'd get elsewhere.

What you appear to be proposing is degrading or diluting what you get in order to improve it?

Real talent will simply go elsewhere if you start cutting their wages.

As to the other broadcasters, Ofcom's own research shows that the BBC is still the leader when it comes to the provision of public broadcasting services. Since when did ITV run a World Service or provide radio coverage nationwide? Does Channel 4 have a regional news service? Channel 4's funding differs to that of ITV and Channel 4 are not strictly speaking a profit orientated broadcaster. They come second in Ofcom's appraisals. ITV broadcasts very little public service orientated contenet and it is a profit based concern. They broadcast what willl get them viewers needed to sell advertiosing space as opposed to catering to all sections of society and minority viewers. They are not interested in providing public services and need to sell ad space.

I've not actually watched ITV for over 10 years now. It must be amazing. What is it I'm missing?


No other service is identical to the BBC.


As a sidenote, the government are actually wanting to sell their interests in CH4 off and as such remove its public service obligation and commitments. Whoever buys it will want a monetary return for their investment. Channel 4 would rather remain the way they are now. Channel 4 aren't bothered about making a profit and simply need to make enough to cover their costs. The same cannot be said of ITV, CH5, Disney, Amazon etc, etc, etc.

It should also be noted that about 70% of the population are happy with the BBC. Calls for it to be obolished are not in the majority despite what some of the threads suggest on this board.



Stop comparing the BBC to broadcasters and streaming services that do not fulfil the same public service obligations the BBC is obligated to provide.
 
Last edited:

white91

Active Member
The BBC pays the same obscene salaries as every other broadcaster. In fact a presenter is likely to get less working for the BBC than they'd get elsewhere.

What you appear to be proposing is degrading or diluting what you get in order to improve it?

Real talent will simply go elsewhere if you start cutting their wages.

As to the other broadcasters, Ofcom's own research shows that the BBC is still the leader when it comes to the provision of public broadcasting services. Since when did ITV run a World Service or provide radio coverage nationwide? Does Channel 4 have a regional news service? Channel 4's funding differs to that of ITV and Channel 4 are not strictly speaking a profit orientated broadcaster. They come second in Ofcom's appraisals. ITV broadcasts very little public service orientated contenet and it is a profit based concern. They broadcast what willl get them viewers neededto sell advertiosing space as opposed to catering to all sections of sopciety and minority viwers. They are not interested in providing public services.

I've not actually watched ITV for over 10 years now. It must be amazing. What is it I'm missing?


No other service is identical to the BBC.
So with the massive cash injection from over 75s can we expect an increase in output, more dazzling talent?

If you listen to yourself, you seem to think the BBC isn't commercial, it all about public service, yet they raise £1.3bn 'selling' programmes worldwide, but you say they are not a profit based concern, so they have no interest in making programmes like ITV for example. I am forced to pay for Eastenders ***.

A significance portion of the licence fee also goes on their pension deficit, not public broadcasting. Also I think we can all get on with our lives without Gary Lineker or Zoe Ball's 'real talent' as you say.

We could pay £1000 per year for The BBC, all we would have is £4m presenters and everyone on final salary pensions with their hands out asking for £1200.

Oh and much of the FIFA World Cup was broadcast on ITV.....
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
The government used to pay for the over 75s. The government are the ones withdrawing that funding and not the BBC.

If you'd rather the BBC continue to do what the government wont then you can kiss bye bye to BBC2 and or other services provided by the BBC.

What makes you think that over 75s are any less able to pay for a license. Is someone taxing them? It can't be the government because they cannot afford to lose their votes.

By the way, the BBC has said that any household with someone aged over 75 who receives Pension Credit will be entitled to a free TV licence paid for by the BBC. Are netflix giving free subscriptions to over 75s on Pension Credit and or the blind? What are SKY doing to ease the finances of pensioners?

The BBC have never committed itself to funding the provision of free TV licenses to the elderly. It was a commitment made by the government that the government withdrew. The same government that is capping the license fee that is resulting in the BBC being under funded.
 
Last edited:

logiciel

Moderator
‘The BBC being underfunded”!
 

white91

Active Member
I see we have differing opinions, however despite all your justification and comparison, there is only one service I am legally required to pay substantial amounts for. Personally I do not get value for money from said service.

I have to subscribe to other services to watch the sport I want to, but its my choice, I get news from everywhere, I also get many trashy programmes like The Voice on other services.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
‘The BBC being underfunded”!


That is fact and not speculation.

They've not even enough money to complete the roll out of HD. The completion was scheduled for several years back, but still isn't finished.

They've cut back on productions and don't even bother bidding for sports coverage rights anymore. Even if they did, how are they supposed to compete with the likes of Amazon or SKY?
 
Last edited:

dante01

Distinguished Member
I see we have differing opinions, however despite all your justification and comparison, there is only one service I am legally required to pay substantial amounts for. Personally I do not get value for money from said service.

I have to subscribe to other services to watch the sport I want to, but its my choice, I get news from everywhere, I also get many trashy programmes like The Voice on other services.



You are legally obligated to pay a license fee whether you watch the BBC or not. As I've implied, it is a tax intended to fund a public service and not the same as the subscriptions you may be paying SKY or Netflix.

You are helping to fund a public service in the same way that your taxes pay for the health service, fire service or the police. Even if not needing these, you still wouldn't want them to not be there.

If you get rid of the license fee then you lose the BBC. Whether you watch it is of no importance. The fact is that it does provide a public service not being facilitated by any other broadcaster. Are you suggesting we get rid of the NHS just because you may not need it right now and because you want a tax cut?



The TV license fee is not a subscription!
 
Last edited:

white91

Active Member
I think its a little far fetched to compare The BBC to the NHS! But sticking with your analogy, yes I would certainly have a tax cut if available as I have private health insurance.

Also if there were similar services in addition to the NHS that were free as in the broadcasting sector, I feel many people would use them instead.

Could you just elaborate on the public service The BBC offer? As far as I can see all sorts of woke sh*t ends up being put on The BBC and justified as essential by some obscure worldwide radio station
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
If you want to find out what the BBC do that you will not and do not get via other services then read the various Ofcom reports. The BBC have never failed to meet their obligations as being a public srrvice broadcaster. They have come top of every report ever posted by Ofcom in this regard.

If you cannot distinguish the difference between The Voice and what a public broadcasting service does and if you are not bothering to actually find out then you shouldn't really be passing judgement on the BBC. You are not in a position to critisise something if you don't understand what it is.

Woke sh*t?

The BBC have been a public service broadcaster since they were conceived back in 1922. Woke isn't a term I use and I'm assuming you are using it because you haven't comprehended what I'd posted? What is woke sh*t? Please explain because I think you'd have a harder task doing so than I'd have explaining what a public service broadcaster is?

Yeah, the BBC broadcast woke sh*t because they are not obligated to just broadcast what will draw in advertising revenue and can therefore broadcast content that would appeal to minority sectors of the community. It provides a public service.


For your amusement and to aid you, here's the actual definition of woke:
The term refers to being aware of social movements (Photo: Getty) Woke was officially added into the Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective in June 2017. The dictionary defines it as “originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice”

So it's sh*t to be "well-informed, up-to-date. alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice”?

I'm pretty sure you use of the term wasn't in the manner it is defined? You appear to think it an insult or a bad thing to be woke? So what would you describe as its opposite and as being more desirable?
 
Last edited:

white91

Active Member
I'm perfectly entitled to pass judgement on something I'm forced to pay for, you can quote as many Ofcom reports as you want, its what it mean to those paying for it that matters.

You clearly blindly defend anything The BBC does. Its an outdated organisation, who pretend they are a public service, whilst robbing the licence fee payer to fund massive salaries and a pension black hole, whilst simultaneously selling programmes all over the work like any other profit organisation. At one point they were paying GL 12 times more than the prime minister gets, but course people will still say they are underfunded......
 

white91

Active Member
Maybe you should use a dictionary more often judging by your spelling, I think we all know what woke means in this context
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
I'm perfectly entitled to pass judgement on something I'm forced to pay for, you can quote as many Ofcom reports as you want, its what it mean to those paying for it that matters.

You clearly blindly defend anything The BBC does. Its an outdated organisation, who pretend they are a public service, whilst robbing the licence fee payer to fund massive salaries and a pension black hole, whilst simultaneously selling programmes all over the work like any other profit organisation. At one point they were paying GL 12 times more than the prime minister gets, but course people will still say they are underfunded......


and you pretend that you actually know what the BBC is and what the license fee actually pays for.

As already stated. The BBC have never not managed to meet its obligations as a public service broadcaster.

As to the sale of content outside of the UK. Yes, they do this. It is the only way that they can raise additional revenue. What are you suggesting they are doing with that money? It is being put back into the BBC. I'm not sure who it would benefit to prevent the BBC selling content abroad? Why don't you want anyone from outside the UK to watching something made by the BBC, sspecially if it helps fund the BBC?
 
Last edited:

dante01

Distinguished Member
Maybe you should use a dictionary more often judging by your spelling, I think we all know what woke means in this context
What, is the spelling too woke for you?

Sorry :)

No. I've no idea what woke means in this context. It doesn't appear to be as derogatory as you intended it to be does it. You've simply misappropriated a term you obviously don't know the meaning of.
 

white91

Active Member
So there is no conflict of interest in an organisation with no remit to make broadcasts people want to buy, making broadcasts people want to buy all over the world to pay obscene salaries and fill a pensions black hole?

You pretend The BBC is something it is not and hasn't been for a long time. Didn't you start your argument questioning the BBC's use of resources?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Best Home Cinema Sources and B&W 805 D4 Speaker Review and more...
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

StormAudio launches ISP Core 16 AV processor
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Cabasse launches limited edition Pearl Pelegrina speaker
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 22nd September 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Creative introduces Sound Blaster Katana V2 soundbar
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Audeze introduces reference LCD-5 planar magnetic headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom