Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

User avatar
By RogerS
Blackswanwood wrote:
RogerS wrote:
Terry - Somerset wrote:....
- the best of BBC (probably 25-30% of output) should be funded centrally

Who decides 'the best' ? And how do they decide ? On what criteria ?

Out of curiosity, which three programmes would you put in 'the Best'.

In our house there would never be agreement on the answer to that last question!

I think the BBC have an impossible job - they are bound by the Royal Charter and get the blame for a funding model that has been imposed on them.

Peaky Blinders, The Night Manager and McMafia are three that I would list as amongst their best and worth paying for.

I'd agree on the middle one. Never saw nor was interested in the other two. Let me rephrase that, Numero-Uno didn't want to watch either of those two. :D

Which kinda proves your point !
User avatar
By stuartpaul
Rorschach wrote:What Julian Knight isn't acknowledging though is that it is already behind a paywall, but one that people are forced to pay whether they want it or not. The technical challenge is making it fairer.

Whilst technically true it's not the sort of paywall Amazon or Netflix use is it? Internet/streaming services seems to be easier to put behind such a wall but 'free to air' is I would suggest, almost impossible to control without additional hardware (if it becomes encrypted then there has to be a way of 'uncrypting', - my word for the day).

I wonder how long you could last with a TV but without a licence before being rumbled? No idea because I've never tried!
By Rorschach
stuartpaul wrote:I wonder how long you could last with a TV but without a licence before being rumbled? No idea because I've never tried!

Quite easily if you are savvy.

Declare you don't require one, refuse to allow access if they do visit, make sure it can't be seen through a window. Job done.

We declare every 2 years, they never inspect. There is nothing to see even if they did visit, but then again they wouldn't get through the door anyway.
Did you read that link "Tn"? I didn't read it completely but did "scan it thoroughly", and guess what, yup the BBC IS biased - and according to that link, biased in EVERY conceivable direction too, and all at once!

But IMO, you're biased too "Tn", and so am I! And so IMO is every reader of this thread, every member of this Forum, and everyone in the world!

We all inherited certain characteristics during our gestation, gained and modified ideas and bias from our parents and the environment in which we were brought up, and further modified and gained other bias and ideas as we developed and grew up, experiencing "something different" to our former norms Whether political (in both the small "p" and big "P" sense) and/or the "trillions" of other "likes and dislikes and - even - prejudices" we ALL exhibit.

Everyone's been doing that since the start of mankind, will continue to do it, and slowly but surely we've been - hopefully - improving generally, otherwise mankind would still be back in the stone age.

So the fact that the Beeb is biased in one way or the other (in all ways at once according to that Wiki link) is no surprise to me - it is staffed by human beings after all!

BUT, IMO, the Beeb does try very hard to be even-handed - sometimes falling over backwards to a ridiculous extent to try and achieve that - and the Beeb undoubtedly does have other failings and makes other mistakes too - as said, "they're only human" ;-) .

Nevertheless, IMO the Beeb generally does a pretty good job, and although I watch/hear their news with a pinch of salt, it's nothing to the large shovel full of salt I normally use when reading the same stuff in the papers!

AND it remains a fact that throughout the world, the BBC is widely admired, AND is blocked in a lot of countries which are not "free" in the way you and I are used to. That should tell us more than a little something about the Beeb.

But how it should be funded and operated into the future I have no idea, but it's clear that in the light of the present widespread discontent, some change/s is overdue. Good luck with that!
User avatar
By RogerS
RogerS wrote:
ColeyS1 wrote:Say if you want to watch the other channels but not pay through the teeth for the bbc content ?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Most of it is streamable, isn't it ?

As I thought, you can stream live ITV and Channel 4 but not Channel 5 ...although some might say that's a Godsend. So there's your answer. The BBC can offer a two-tier system. Those who don't mind paying a licence can watch it off-air. Those who want to watch selected programmes can pay for it on subscription and stream it. Of course, you won't be able to watch all those shopping channels as they're off-air AFAIK.
User avatar
By RogerS
There's another very good reason for the licence fee to continue and that is the impact that the BBC has on creating/performing/educating/promoting classical music in this country. All their orchestras. The BBC Proms - the world's largest classical music event. All that would go as I can't see how it would be funded.
User avatar
By RogerS
AES wrote:+1 RogerS, (but you've forgotten their excellent choirs). :D

And their New Generation Artist programme.

Their commissioning of new works.
User avatar
By RogerS
phil.p wrote:All of which are very good - but is that what the BBC is actually for?

Yes ! It's in their Charter.
By rafezetter
thetyreman wrote:the most recent doctor who is the perfect example of trying to please everybody, whilst pleasing nobody at the same time, it's for me the worst series they've ever created, and not because the doctor is female, it's the cast, the PC ness of it and the poor quality writing. The series before it with capaldi was one of the best so it's a real let down in my opinion.

I thought you were writing about some new medical doctor series, lol, it wasn't until you mentioned Capaldi that I understood what you were writing about; punctuation and proper use of capitals is everything :).

But I do agree she's not great, bring back the first guy in the revival, Christopher Ecclestone - I thought he did "angsty, last of my species, seen it all and it's still rubbish" very well.
By rafezetter
AndyT wrote:Quick practical question.

Remember that all the BBC's output is available, unmetered, with no subscriber ID, via a transmission tower and an aerial. ( Along with the rest of the Freeview channels.)
What mechanism could be used to identify and bill everyone who wants the BBC channels using the existing transmitter and tuner delivery?
Preferably one which doesn't need a whole lot of new electronics and extra energy to run it.

Snipped for salient points - I have looked and to watch something from the BBC on catchup via my Virgin Box I have to "sign in" to an account.

Never tried, but if it asked me for a licence fee issue number or some other identifier that I have one - that wouldn't suprise me, and if not - surely that would be the way to go right? Everyones utilities accounts are individually referenced, why not the BBC?

Most TV's are so smart now they can store that sort of info on the first registry so you just go straight to it next time.

All the technology is already employed in most other business that deal with the general public, such that people trying to access a duplicated account is rare.

TBH I think they are running out of excuses as to why this sytem is still used.

(I thought it was Whovian to denote a fan and abrogation - what a great word! )