The BBC, what sort of future does it have? (funding, activities etc)

[bearhugger]

Just out of curiousity, do TV Detector vans still exist & operate? Not heard of them for years. I seem to remember the staff would knock on unlicensed property doors if they were detectected or is that an 'urban myth'?

 

[kevin_roche]

Just out of curiousity, do TV Detector vans still exist & operate? Not heard of them for years. I seem to remember the staff would knock on unlicensed property doors if they were detectected or is that an 'urban myth'?

The technology they used relied on the analog superhetrodyne oscillator signal in the TV being detected by the equipment in the van. It worked sometimes. I remember watching a local TV station in the Northwest where the reporter showed the operator of a detector van creeping up people's front path to look through the windows. A friend of mine who had no TV was regularly disturbed by the detectors claiming that had detected one.

With digital TV there is no way to tell what you have in the house, so the vans were retired when digital TV started.

 

[bearhugger]

The technology they used relied on the analog superhetrodyne oscillator signal in the TV being detected by the equipment in the van. It worked sometimes. I remember watching a local TV station in the Northwest where the reporter showed the operator of a detector van creeping up people's front path to look through the windows. A friend of mine who had no TV was regularly disturbed by the detectors claiming that had detected one.

With digital TV there is no way to tell what you have in the house, so the vans were retired when digital TV started.

Interesting answer, thanks. Not knowing the difference between the technicalities of analogue and digital signals , all I know is I needed a bigger aerial with more prongs on it to better receive the digital signal. I seem to remember at some point in the digital switchover period our local transmitter at Bilsdale was upgraded for digital too.

 

[Bevan Price]

Although it is far from perfect, I think that to lose the BBC would be catastrophic. Governments of all flavours think that the BBC is biased, just because the BBC fails to agree that everything done by that government is absolutely perfect and vital. Funding will always be a problem, but unless it got direct funding from central government (unlikely), the licence fee seems the least bad option.

However, the BBC is not without faults. It pays excessive fees to some staff and "hired" entertainers. In many cases, there are alternative people who could do "jobs" just as well as so-called big name celebrities for a lot less money. It is complacent and self-satisfied in some areas, lacking in imagination - for example persisting for far too long with tired, stale soaps & "continuing dramas" - rather than giving opportunities to create new, original dramas. "Age & class targetting" has also become a fad - instead of producing programmes with a wide appeal, they are increasingly producing material to only interest (for example) young, working class people. And "arty farty" types use techniques like foreground muzak and/or poor lighting of drama scenes because "THEY" like them - repeatedly ignoring complaints from viewers who hate such things.

And their music policy is pretty dire and unimaginative. Excluding classical music, the music output mostly cannot think beyond the bounds of play lists and pop singles (past or present). With apologies to those who like such things, they have 2 channels (R1, R1x) largely playing "dance orientated" pop mainly for teens and sub-teens. Radio 2 is mostly current / recent pop, with a bare minimum of coverage allowed for other types of music (folk, rock, blues, etc.). Radio 6 is perhaps the best of all, but even that seems mostly dominated by "older" pop singles. Anyone hoping to hear "non-pop", or long tracks found on the thousands of albums issued each year will listen in vain on BBC - and on most of the other UK radio stations.

Local radio is welcome, but increasingly dominated by national events rather than local news. And much of the music output on local radio seems to be nothing other than the tedious diet of pop singles found on Radio 2.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I seem to remember the staff would knock on unlicensed property doors if they were detectected or is that an 'urban myth'?

They're snake oil.

The technology they used relied on the analog superhetrodyne oscillator signal in the TV being detected by the equipment in the van. It worked sometimes. I remember watching a local TV station in the Northwest where the reporter showed the operator of a detector van creeping up people's front path to look through the windows. A friend of mine who had no TV was regularly disturbed by the detectors claiming that had detected one.

With digital TV there is no way to tell what you have in the house, so the vans were retired when digital TV started.

Just saying they were never used in any court cases. Probably because that would reveal the fact they're just propaganda.

 

[Hadders]

Although not ideal the alternatives to how the BBC is funded are unappealing. As for the cost it's an absolute snip. Compare and contrast the cost of a BBC license to:

A SKY subscription
BT TV
Amazon Prime etc.

 

[Senex]

Although not ideal the alternatives to how the BBC is funded are unappealing. As for the cost it's an absolute snip. Compare and contrast the cost of a BBC license to:

A SKY subscription
BT TV
Amazon Prime etc.

But if it's a subscription I choose to pay because it buys me a great deal of content that I want to be able to watch, that can't really be compared with the compulsory "subscription" for a dog-in-the-manger organisation that provides very, very little content that I want to see.

 

[Bevan Price]

We all pay tax for some things we do not use. For example, I don't get a reduction in council tax just because I have no kids to go to school.

 

[Typhoon]

We all pay tax for some things we do not use. For example, I don't get a reduction in council tax just because I have no kids to go to school.

Absolutely, we finance those things which are deemed to be for the common good. Otherwise we would additionally find objections to libraries, museums, parks, playgrounds, allotments, playing fields, leisure centres. Then we would get cries of 'obesity crisis' and 'literacy crisis'.
The BBC does enhance the culture of the country through music, drama, documentaries, providing employment for those on the way up. Of course, others might fill the void but I fear our television will become more and more Americanised. The new children's tv channels being a prime example, with American cartoons. And what has happened to commercial local radio?

 

[A0wen]

The licence fee is now an anachronism - in the days when the BBC was the sole broadcast provider it was entirely justified. When there was a 'duopoly' of BBC and ITV even Channel 4 it could still be justified.

It started to become less justified when Sky launched as a subscription service because in theory it should have been possible to just subscribe to Sky and not have to pay for the BBC.

Now, with the multitude of streaming options - and the fact the technology exists for everyone to have a subscription based approach (all receiving equipment has to be capable of having a CAM) there really is no excuse for the BBC not to be subscription based.

To all the people who say 'well but the BBC provides opposition to the government' - that's not it's role and it's been too parochial about that role having been supine to Labour governments. If I want to read the Times I don't have to pay for a copy of the Guardian, equally if I want to watch ITV or Sky, I shouldn't have to pay for the BBC.

 

[Hadders]

The point is the BBC provides services which a commercial organisation wouldn't necessarily provide. Look at the breadth of stuff the BBC does:

National TV
Regional TV
National Radio
Local Radio
Online

That's before you look at what is covered under each of the above. I doubt very much if we would get this breadth of coverage from a commercial organisation.

 

[Sean Davidson]

Although not ideal the alternatives to how the BBC is funded are unappealing. As for the cost it's an absolute snip. Compare and contrast the cost of a BBC license to:

A SKY subscription
BT TV
Amazon Prime etc.

But all the services you mentioned give you the choice of whether or not you have them on your television, however, the BBC is funded by a compulsory fee whether you want it or not, I don't want the BBC because I find as a straight, middle aged, middle class English man, they do not cater for me.

 

[Hadders]

But all the services you mentioned give you the choice of whether or not you have them on your television, however, the BBC is funded by a compulsory fee whether you want it or not, I don't want the BBC because I find as a straight, middle aged, middle class English man, they do not cater for me.

There are loads of services flulike schools, libraries etc that I don’t use but I have to pay for through taxation.

 

[py_megapixel]

Attempting to privatise/commercialise the BBC would be a disaster. I know many people who watch it specifically because they don't want to be advertised to. If they went to subscription, how many people would actually pay for it?

Funding through general taxation would worry me as it puts the BBC at the mercy of governments' eccentric budget cuts and allows use of funding as a political weapon against the BBC, which has the potential to compromise their attempts to be impartial.

@Bevan Price and @Typhoon make an excellent point about funding things we don't use. There are plenty of people who, for example, pay council tax which funds food waste collection, but compost all of their food waste at home. If everybody started to be petty about this kind of thing then nothing would ever get done.

My opinion is that the television license is a good method of funding, but free licenses should be made available to those who cannot afford them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One thing that really amuses me about the BBC is when one of their senior managers appears on "Points of View" to defend their managerial decisions on broadcasting matters and spouts forth the most "nanny knows best" explanations that are an insult to the intelligence of those watching that programme.

 

[LMS 4F]

To those who favour the licence as opposed to taxation I would suggest they are missing a very relevant point. This is effectively a taxation to watch Television which is the same to all would be viewers irrespective of their ability to pay. Allot of taxation is based on income such as income tax or size of property in the case of council tax.
The best comparison for the licence fee is the Poll Tax of about 30 years ago and we all know what happened to that.

 

[VauxhallandI]

To those who complain about not liking all the content on their enforced BBC, do you watch all the content in your chosen subscriptions?

I find the bulk of Netflix, Sky and Amazon is rubbish but I subscribe for the bits I want.

 

[Typhoon]

To those who favour the licence as opposed to taxation I would suggest they are missing a very relevant point. This is effectively a taxation to watch Television which is the same to all would be viewers irrespective of their ability to pay. Allot of taxation is based on income such as income tax or size of property in the case of council tax.
The best comparison for the licence fee is the Poll Tax of about 30 years ago and we all know what happened to that.

The argument that is usually made against linking the licence to income tax is that the risk of undue government influence on the BBC. It is also very easy to buy a licence; when I needed one last year, no need to quote income or whatever, just buy it straight away, so that has appeal. But you are essentially right, the burden falls disproportionally on lower income and single person households. The difficulty with linking it to income would be whose income - household income or as a supplement to income tax. I have sure politicians would welcome 'popular' ways of paying!

Incidentally, Council Tax is linked to the value (not size) of the property almost 30 years ago (and the only to a point - anything over £320,000 was classed the same) so it has its own flaws!

 

[Senex]

To those who complain about not liking all the content on their enforced BBC, do you watch all the content in your chosen subscriptions?

I find the bulk of Netflix, Sky and Amazon is rubbish but I subscribe for the bits I want.

But you're not compelled to subscribe to, say, Netflix if you hardly ever want to watch its output but you do still want, say, Amazon and Sky.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I find the bulk of Netflix, Sky and Amazon is rubbish but I subscribe for the bits I want.

But you're not compelled to subscribe to, say, Netflix if you hardly ever want to watch its output but you do still want, say, Amazon and Sky.

In fact, you still need a tv licence to watch them in your home. Why should you pay money to the bbc to watch someone else. I'd be fine with a tv licence if it was at least shared out with Channel 4.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I was under the impression you didn’t need a tv licence if you didn’t watch live TV?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the old days, one of the arguments put forward by those wishing to "preserve in BBC in aspic" was the fact that no extraneous advertisements of any type ever sullied the content of BBC programmes, but one only now has to look at the amount of self-advertisements used by the BBC that appear in each broadcasting hour, some of which have been given the title of "trails".

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was under the impression you didn’t need a tv licence if you didn’t watch live TV?

You don't, other than the BBC iPlayer (specifically). You can watch Netflix to your heart's content without one, much to the BBC's dislike, as it does not show any live TV at all. With regard to the other players, you can use those as long as you don't select the option to view a channel live.

 

[CrispyUK]

I was slightly annoyed when it came to setting up the direct debit. They wanted a one-off card payment of £52.50, and the next two instalments will be the same amount. Only after that will the payments drop to the £13 per month. So effectively I'm paying for a year spread over three months and then next year's in advance. They don't mention that in their adverts!

Normally when starting a TV Licence monthly direct debit you pay for your first licence over six months, at around £26.25 a month. After this, you pay for your next licence in 12 monthly instalments of around £13.12 – so when your licence is due to renew, you’ve already paid for half of it, and pay the other half over the next six months, before starting to pay for the next renewal in advance.

Did you ask for the licence start date to be backdated when you signed up? I can’t think why else you would have such high payments for a few months.

I do think the way they handle the monthly payments is a bit odd, it’s fine once you’re “in the system” and just paying £13 or so every month, but is annoying as you’ve found when just getting started and you end up paying more than you may have budgeted for a few months, or for students who only need a licence for 9-10 months at a time.

Feels like a bit of an archaic arrangement likely harking back to early days of a direct debit option becoming available. But I guess they can’t easily move to a more modern “subscription” style payment with a flat monthly fee without pausing payments for millions of existing licence holders that have paid 6 months ahead, which would cause a bit of a cashflow problem for Aunty Beeb!

 

[VauxhallandI]

You don't, other than the BBC iPlayer (specifically). You can watch Netflix to your heart's content without one, much to the BBC's dislike, as it does not show any live TV at all. With regard to the other players, you can use those as long as you don't select the option to view a channel live.

That concurs with what I have just been researching.

What I don’t get is that if everything else is better then why don’t people just stop paying the fee and do the alternatives?

During my research I see we have YouTube videos with all the same old outrage and demands to destroy the BBC.

They’ll be asking for a referendum next.

Where are all these outraged people coming from and what do you think will be the next think they are told to be mortally wounded about and supposedly have been upset about for decades...

 

[Bletchleyite]

What I don’t get is that if everything else is better then why don’t people just stop paying the fee and do the alternatives?

Goodness knows. To be fair I have a friend who does - he has a smart TV connected to the Internet but not an aerial, no BBC iPlayer installed and watches Netflix, Amazon Prime TV etc.

Personally I watch the BBC a lot and am more than happy to pay for it as a result (and would subscribe to it if that was how it worked). But if you don't, all you're having to do, basically, is delay watching anything on the BBC/ITV until it's finished broadcasting live, and if you want rolling news listen to the radio. It's really not a big thing unless you're massively into sports, and maybe you could watch those down the pub (in normal circumstances) or listen to that on the radio?

So, if you don't want to pay the TV licence, don't. It is genuinely no longer compulsory, with some very minor modifications to your non-BBC viewing habits. And if you want to view the BBC, er, pay for it.

 

[Energy]

Getting rid of BBC 3 was a mistake, a lot of the youth market no longer watch the BBC as there isn't stuff for them and the digital BBC 3 stuff really isn't that good. There is no a sort of hole with the age of viewers between cbbc and bbc 1/2 which is what BBC 3 used to cover quite well.

I would first try to get better content, the BBC have gone downhill for me although the lack of BBC 3 has certainly helped that. BBC Bitesize should be funded by the government so it doesn't require advertising or the licence fee, BBC news should not to keep it unbiased.

The licence fee is too expensive, £13 a month is quite a lot and I would put it at £8.99 a month for BBC 1, 2, 3, 4 and News. Not really sure about weather, may be free as it is cheap to run and may get new people to try the bbc.

They should also allow anyone around the world to subscribe to this £8.99 a month idea, limiting it to the UK really limits their revenue as a lot of people who want to watch BBC content oversees have to VPN in and not pay the licence fee even if they are willing to.

They should also improve iPlayer to show most of the BBC's archive which a lot of people will want to see the older shows.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I used to think the licence fee was worthwhile for all the important but not commercially viable things (local/regional news, lower division football reports) that the BBC provided...

However the quality and depth of these things has declined substantially in the last few years. All match reports from below Championship level are now bought in from the Press Association. The amount of errors in reporting (particularly online text stories) is quite astounding, proofreading seems to be a lost art. (No doubt now I've said that I'll have made a load of mistakes in this post... but at least I won't come knocking on your door and demand that you fund my posts!).

As for BBC News, people on both the left and the right seem to think the reporting is biased against their particular views, which (much like football referees) suggests they're doing something right... however I find that you can see very clear lines on where the BBC is "liberal" and where it's "conservative": if it's a social issue the reporting and coverage will be inclusive in a very tokenistic way. If it's an economic issue, the coverage will be very conservative.

 

[dosxuk]

In the old days, one of the arguments put forward by those wishing to "preserve in BBC in aspic" was the fact that no extraneous advertisements of any type ever sullied the content of BBC programmes, but one only now has to look at the amount of self-advertisements used by the BBC that appear in each broadcasting hour, some of which have been given the title of "trails".

Are you really saying that a trail (you know, as in trailer, as in common parlance when going to the cinema) for an upcoming programme on the same network is equivalent to "HI, I'M BARRY SCOTT!"?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are you really saying that a trail (you know, as in trailer, as in common parlance when going to the cinema) for an upcoming programme on the same network is equivalent to "HI, I'M BARRY SCOTT!"?

You appear to have missed the point about self-advertising by an organisation to whom advertising was said to be anathema that I sought to make.