TV Licensing - very disappointing!

[Eric The Viking]

We pay. I'd be much happier about it if the BBC cut back the breath of its services and focused more on the quality of a few things.

When I worked for them, there were:

• Two TV channels
• Four national radio channels, plus the "national regions" of Scotland Wales and NI
• An infant Gallic service
• A network of local radio stations
• An Open University production centre in Milton Keynes
• BBC Engineering, including the transmitter network for TV and Radio and BBC Research Dept.

And that was pretty much it.

Before someone comments, the World Service was then (1980s) entirely funded from the Foreign Office budget. There was staff and programming crossover, but generally speaking no licence money went towards it. The international monitoring service (HQ at Caversham) was also FO funded, IIRC.

Today, you can add...

• BBC3 TV
• BBC4 TV
• BBC News 24 TV
• BBC web activities, including iPlayer (it caused a HUGE increase in bandwidth requirement)
• BBC minority broadcasting (Asian network, 5-live, all the DAB channels, etc.)
• BBC "red button" services
• BBC audience support services ("if you have a question regarding anything in this programme...")
• BBC World Service (no longer funded entirely by the FO)
• A shedload of other stuff, like the "BBC College of Journalism" etc.

With the exception of a pretty castrated Engineering Training department (still at Wood Norton near Evesham but largely commercially-financed), and a much diminished Research Department (being forcefully moved to Salford), the BBC has shed any real responsibility for broadcast engineering. The post of Director of Engineering was abolished some years ago. There is a "Head of Gadgetry" or some such, but it ain't quite the same. There are staff engineers in the regions, as regional TV couldn't really function without them, but that's pretty much the last bastion of BBC in-house technical expertise.

Aside: some of us are watching the amateurish stuff from the Olympic site with an "I told you so" grimace. It would have been an enormous technical/logistical challenge for even the old BBC, and to expect flawless coverage in the new era is quite unrealistic. It remains to be seen what will fail dramatically, but something most probably will. The budget is evidently pared to the bone. I watched the news last night and it looked as though the cameras were locked-off, and without racks engineers. Picture and sound quality were risible.

Anyway, adjusting for inflation, the value of the licence fee has fallen dramatically over the past couple of decades.

Given all that lot, it's no wonder that programme quality has plummeted. If the BBC was refocused on a limited range of higher quality output, I'd be happy to pay, but as it is, I think we're watching the slow extinction of a dinosaur.

E.

 

[RogerS]

..... without racks engineers. .....
E.

Bloody Hell, Eric. That term took me back over 40 years ....gulp.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Deleted duplicate post

 

[Cheshirechappie]

After reading Eric the Viking's long submission - It's most interesting to hear the views of someone with some solid experience - thanks for that post, Eric.

I'm just an ordinary, middle-aged 'viewer and listener'. From my perspective, the BBC has been going downhill quite drasically over the last couple of decades. It still produces the odd gem here and there (there is nothing to equal Test Match Special, for example), but they have developed a blinkered worldview that compromises their impartiality, in my view. A good deal of their politically-related output is of somewhat questionable balance, they have a strange addiction to the view that climate change is totally man-made, an almost blind faith in the sanctity of the EU (in contrast to a significant proportion of the general population), most of their 'comedy' is anything but, and the bloated bureaucracy absorbs Licence-payers' money almost as fast as the ludicrous payments to some of their so-called 'talent' (half a million a year for a newsreader, or - probably the worst case - six million a year to Johnathan Woss - is ludicrous). They are becoming prone to major cock-ups (Jubilee river pageant, for example), and apart from the Six Nations Rugby, don't cover any major sports at all.

My telly is now only switched on for Dad's Army repeats, the aforementioned Rugby, and an occasional worthwhile programme such as Michael Wood's current history series on Friday nights. The rest I find banal and boring, so don't bother with. Radio can be a bit better, but I now find that if I look at news reports on the same event in several different sources, I get a more balanced view than by BBC alone.

I'm inclined to agree with Eric - the BBC is a dinosaur sliding slowly towards it's doom, unless it slims down and starts producing programming of far higher quality. It should leave the mass-market stuff to others, and concentrate on genuine public service if it is to retain any right to 'telly tax' funding.

 

[Eric The Viking]

..... without racks engineers. .....
E.

Bloody Hell, Eric. That term took me back over 40 years ....gulp.

Well, all right "vision control" then.

The point was the lights were (not) on and nobody was home! :roll:

E.

PS: In the interests of pedantry, I forgot S4C in the earlier list, but I'm not sure that it wasn't funded by the then Welsh Office.

PPS: It's not that long ago either: I was doing racks occasionally into the 1990s (just about!).

 

[RogerS]

No, racks was spot on!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

SC4 is apparently the most heavily subsidised channel (per capita) in the world.

 

[Eric The Viking]

I'm not at all surprised.

About six years ago, I used the accounts of the Welsh Ass to calculate that translation costs into Welsh for public sector activities (signs, publications, courts, healthcare and social services, proceedings of public bodies, etc.) . IIRC, it worked out at around £7,000 per native Welsh speaker per annum. Those accounts did not include S4C.

Every single document from Westminster that has any relevance to Wales is also translated into Welsh. That cost wasn't included, either.

You might think it madness. I couldn't possibly comment ;-)

E.

 

[DrPhill]

If the BBC concentrated on a narrow range of activities including high-quality balanced journalism I would happily pay the licence fee. As it is I have no TV, and do not pay the licence fee.

I remember (vaguely) that when TV started, transmission ceased during the day because there was 'not enough quality content to fill the day'. It seems to me that not a lot has changed. The addition of a gazillion new channels has only served to dilute whatever quality content there was in the first place. Ten, fifteen, or more years after giving up the 'goddam noisey box' I still get asked 'Did you see that program about a meteor wiping out the dinosaurs', or 'did you see Ray Mears eating wichita grubs last night'. I can imagine Dads Army is still repeating......

I enjoy the ever-increasing levels of threat in the letters that the TV licensing authority send to 'the legal occupier' of my house, although I do worry that some older folk, and some nervous types may be bullied into buying a licence even if they have no TV. I look forward to the long-promised visit from 'the boys' - I will inform them that they have no statutory right of entry without a warrant and a police officer. Childish, I know, but I object to being asked to prove that I do not have a TV, especially when I will need to renew this proof every couple of years. Imagine if you kept being ask to sign a piece of paper to declare 'I have no illegal firearms', 'I am not harbouring illegal immigrants', 'I have never broken the speed limit' and so forth......

Sorry, rant over. I feel better for that.

 

[Eric The Viking]

If the BBC concentrated on a narrow range of activities including high-quality balanced journalism I would happily pay the licence fee. As it is I have no TV, and do not pay the licence fee.

I remember (vaguely) that when TV started, transmission ceased during the day because there was 'not enough quality content to fill the day'. It seems to me that not a lot has changed.

I can't be alone in having wondered, when breakfast and then daytime entertainment TV started, what they'd fill the time with and who'd watch it. I still don't know.

I enjoy the ever-increasing levels of threat in the letters that the TV licensing authority send to 'the legal occupier' of my house, although I do worry that some older folk, and some nervous types may be bullied into buying a licence even if they have no TV. I look forward to the long-promised visit from 'the boys' - I will inform them that they have no statutory right of entry without a warrant and a police officer. Childish, I know, but I object to being asked to prove that I do not have a TV, especially when I will need to renew this proof every couple of years. Imagine if you kept being ask to sign a piece of paper to declare 'I have no illegal firearms', 'I am not harbouring illegal immigrants', 'I have never broken the speed limit' and so forth...

You're quite right.

Although we do have to sign pieces of paper saying we haven't broken certain laws: I have a motorbike SORNed at present, and that's exactly what that document is. Totally pointless, unless you're cynical enough to think it's a way of getting money from people who forget to do it. :twisted:

E.

 

[RogerS]

......

Although we do have to sign pieces of paper saying we haven't broken certain laws: I have a motorbike SORNed at present, and that's exactly what that document is. Totally pointless, unless you're cynical enough to think it's a way of getting money from people who forget to do it. :twisted:

E.

No, I think you're wrong there. If you have a car then if you have it on the road then you pay tax. if you take it off the road then SORN it. End of. If one is stupid enough not to do either than more fool you!!

 

[Eric The Viking]

Roger, I'm puzzled:

SORN is a 'declaration' that the vehicle is kept off the road. Isn't that exactly the same idea as signing a declaration that you don't use a TV to receive off-air transmissions? In both cases it's stating formally you're obeying the law. The 'statute' part was an afterthought because so many people were breaking the law.

It's a total waste of resources, but then so much of public administration is these days...

 

[adidat]

do you have to have a tv license if you have sky??

when my brother lived alone he had a telly and never watched tv. just played games and watched dvd's, the countless threatening letters he received, even after showing cold callers proof that the telly was for other purposes was amazing.

adidat

 

[LeeElms]

Yes, you do need a licence to receive any (live) broadcast TV, including Sky, Virgin, BT ...

 

[RogerS]

....
It's a total waste of resources, but then so much of public administration is these days...

Not really. Having a valid road tax licence goes hand in hand with (a) a valid MOT and (b) insurance. So if it isn;t on the road and with those provisos then you need to say it isn't otherwise you will get a fine.

Having a TV that is unlicensed isn't going to run into my car.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Fine people who drive without tax and insurance. Jail them. Throw the book at them. But don't make me sign bits of paper annually that just tell bureaucrats I'm intending to obey the law. It's meaningless.

I think we'll have to differ on this one.

E.

 

[RogerS]

Digressing slightly...where are all these extra digital channels to be found? Do they appear as separate channels like BBC1, BBC2 etc or do I have to do something cleverer?

All in the interest of science, you understand..I need to check the exposure on the Beach Volleyball

 

[Eric The Viking]

Up above 100, IIRC. Around the channels the BBC allocates to the red button services.

Beach volleyball: under- or overexposed, depending on where you're sitting, I expect.

Thinking on a bit, the BBC could do a lot for its revenue stream by launching a commercial Beach Volleyball channel, on a loop. The only problem is that they'd probably lose an alarmingly large %age of audience from the other channels. Gotta be a winner, commercially.

 

[devonwoody]

I cannot recall watching anything on ITV1 for weeks. So BBC1/2 cannot be too bad.

 

[cambournepete]

I cannot recall watching anything on ITV1 for weeks. So BBC1/2 cannot be too bad.

I agree and BBC sports coverage is in general far superior to ITV.
For the cost of the licence the BBC is excellent value for money in my view.
I can't help feeling there's rather a lot of rose-tinted-spectacle syndrome in this thread...