1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

The issue is not about people that use the BBC services a lot, it's
about people that have to pay for it but don't even use it or hardly
use it and don't get good value for money - it's good value for you,
because they're helping to pay your fair share! It's not surprising
that high BBC users want to keep the status quo so that Mr Northern
Council Estate Dweller helps to fund the viewing habits of Mr Home
Counties Professional...

That was my point about comparable spends - even if you're not a very
light BBC user it almost certainly still represents great value for
money.


Hardly.


These peopel who 'hardly ever watch television' but listen to
Radio4 or Radio 1 (that picks up both ends of the spectrum doesn't it)
for hours each day. Personally i think 36p a day is good value just
for the radio.


Radio is a separate issue, because radio only accounts for a small
percentage of the BBC's budget, and you don't pay a Radio Licence, you pay a
TV Licence.


The BBC enriches the culture of the UK. Without it we'd rapidly
become even more of an American outpost.


This is what bugs me about the pro-licence fee people, you seem to think
that changing the funding structure would stop the BBC making anything
decent, which is utter nonsense.


The strength of UK
television is one of the factors that helps us punch above our weight
globally.


Absolute nonsense. If you've forgotten, we used to run half the frigging
world until WWII, so it's because of our history that we punch above our
weight globally.


Looked at in some ways sure, you can argue a flat tax is
unfair but a dogmatic approach to competition and fairness does not
always get the best solution.

Two examples that come immediately to mind are the Poll Tax
(infinitely fairer than Council tax but uncollectable),


It's a great idea if you're in favour of riots.


and directory
enquiries (where we've gone from a single number and a known cost to
multiple numbers, no idea of cost and all more expensive to the user).

There might be a few tweaks to the way the bbc works but mess too much
and you risk destroying something that is the envy of most of the
world.


Bollox. It's only by severing the link between their obsession with viewing
figures that we'll start to get a lot better programmes. It should be funded
by general taxation for 1 public service TV channel, radio and bbc.co.uk +
subscription for the rest.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfur Million
wrote:
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfur Million
wrote:
I think that this argument shows a real divide between those who are
pro-licence and those who are anti-licence fee people. Those, or many
of
those, who support the fee think why not pay for TV out of public
money,
if it leads to better quality and more diverse programming. Many
anti-licencists (?), such as myself, do not accept that TV has a
legitimate reason to be funded publicly, and cannot be placed on a par
with critical services such as the NHS, education or the armed forces.

Accepted as a coherent argument. And you later go on to suggest that
the
bits that are educational might be so funded.

But it wouldn't work.

Why not, it worked for the OU.

No it didn't. The radio and TV broadcasts were a small part of the OU
courses
and, although they played an excellent role in recruiting students (and
pacing active students), they did very little in educating non-students.

So it did work for the OU, then - in the terms of reference for which they
were created, if not the terms of reference that you have invented for your
last post.

I, as a non-OU student, also found many of the programmes entertaining and
informative and I know that other people did too.

Ironically as broadcasts from the OU have become less irksome to the
broadcasting of more general programmes - in the early days there was
tension
between the need to air OU programmes on BBC2 at almost social hours and
the
need to broadcast non-OU programmes at the same time - a number of
OU-sourced
programmes have been presented on prime-time. So while you're wrong to say
that it worked for the OU

But you have just said that "they played an excellent role in recruiting
students (and pacing active students)", so you agree that they did work.

you may be right to suggest that it is now starting
to work from the OU. It's taken a long time to get there though - ISTR the
idea surfacing when I chaired the OU's NW Regional Committee, back in the
early 80s.

The only way that you'll get the whole thing to work is as a mix of
inform, educate, and entertain. Indeed the best programmes - I've
discussed "Big Cook Little Cook" do all three at once and the audience
don't even notice (or care). But the good bits work.

According to who? Mr Cartmell, Mr Million, the BBC Governers? The problem
is that there is no real accountability, no proper measurement of the
effect of programmes like Big Cook, Big Cook - but we're just supposed to
cough up for them, willy-nilly.

By all means question the statement - but do so from a position of
authority.
Do state your qualifications to make such criticism *and* watch the
programme
whilst observing its target audience.

There you go again. The question I posed was who decides that they work and
by what criteria? Exactly what qualifications do you think I need to pose
such a question? There is a number of issues being considered here,
including:

- is the quality of the programmes high?
- are they educational?
- should they be paid for out of public funding?
- if so, is the licence fee the appropriate way to do this?

and you posts are muddling through the issues without any clarity of
thought. Are you saying that just because a BBC programme is educational,
that it is right for it to be paid out of the licence fee? Why not the
education budget? Why not subscription? After all, if there is a book which
is fun; promotes parent-child interaction; informs/educates/entertains all
at once; promotes activity; promotes discussion and teaches how to cook then
it will either be a school text book or it will have to be bought by the
parents. Should TV be so different? I am happy to contribute to an education
budget that goes through a proper accountable education process; but am not
happy to contribute to things just because someone at the BBC has labelled
them "educational" where their content has been decided on by the opaque
cabalistic processes that occur within the BBC.

It is also not clear why such educational programmes be made by the same
people who make other types of programmes. You seem to be saying that it is
necessary in order to make it a seamless experience, and yet your prime
example is on a separate channel anyway, which seams rather muddle-headed.
There is no reason that this channel shouldn't be made subscription as part
of a separate package.


The trouble is (and it started this discussion) is that the BBC is
criticised if the share of its audience falls. It has to include a big
(very big) dollop of entertainment. Now I would argue strongly against
lots of (needless) dumbing down and for more intellectually challenging
programmes. I'd like to see an adult equivalent of "Big Cook Little
Cook" that helped us develop an educated citizenship with a better
understanding of the world [a recent survey showed that 30% of a random
sample of adults didn't know where leather came from - ie didn't
appreciate that it indicated a dead animal]. You won't get that
education by putting on educational programmes - those that need it
won't watch it - but you do need a larger group of educated people else
the stupid will act to cause misery for the rest of us (eg not
understand why innoculation is important, you should complete a course
of
anti-biotics, Murdoch isn't a nice man who wants to give you the best
TV
cheap, &c).

Education through TV works when it's all properly integrated and
knowing
and understanding is given high status. You'll be moving in the wrong
direction by trying to split up the BBC.


Despite the educational potential of TV, there is some evidence to
suggest
that watching *less* telly will improve people's education. What you're
suggesting leads to criticisms of Auntie Beeb for lecturing down to us. I
think it is helpful for education to be openly seen as such, so as to
avoid
the suspicion of subliminal messages.

That is where you are so far behind development that it's rather
frightening
that you're choosing to comment. TV (plonked in front of) is clearly bad
but

So there is some evidence to suggest that watching *less* telly will improve
people's education. Or are you going to force people to watch what you
decide is good for them

good children's TV will encourage child and carer joint participation and
lead
on to subsequent (not in front of the TV) activity, discussion, and
further
learning.
That's why I mentioned those particular children's programmes in that
list.


No doubt you have some evidence to back this up, but you think that I am too
poorly qualified to ask what that evidence is.

Regards,
Arfur

Java Jive wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
news
Java Jive wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Java Jive wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in
message ...

BTW, where's the US equivalent of the BBC? Where do we buy a lot
of the best programmes on TV from?

[snip]

But you were claiming by juxtaposition that because there is no
equivalent of the BBC in the US and because the US is the source of
many of the programmes on our main channels, that there is no need
for the BBC Licence Fee to maintain the standard of Public Service
Broadcasting, but that's a complete non-sequitur.

You misinterpreted my point, which was that, IIRC,

Even you are not sure?


No, because this is a long thread with multiple points being made, so I
wasn't sure which point this was related to.


people were laughably
claiming that the BBC would somehow stop making programmes, or the
programmes they do make would inevitably be **** quality

Well, that makes it now a double non-sequitur ...

Firstly, as you can see from the quotes above, I didn't misinterpret
what you said (what you said may not have been what you intended to
say, but that's your problem, not mine) nor therefore what that
juxtaposition implied.

Secondly, others claiming something doesn't imply that I was claiming
the same thing.


I'm not saying you did.


and IIRC I gave the example of HBO, which makes good series (whether
you like them or not is immaterial if millions of people think
they're good quality series), and HBO makes content for cable
subscription services.

... And I'm still waiting for some examples that were good enough to
appear over here (of the sort of intellectual/scientific/artistic
output that I would be prepared to pay a subscription instead of a TV
Licence for, ie: not the populist ones you give below) ...


As I've said, I consider that the example of the satellite digital radio
systems in the US show that unpopular stations are launched, which wouldn't
be launched if they were advert-funded. There's 120 radio stations providing
for small niches, and they can do that because people pay a flat-fee, and
they don't have to worry about the absolute audience figures - they just
have to ensure that people are happy with what they're getting, and if
they're not then they will unsubscribe.

I think that is a good way for the BBC to go, because the BBC can stop being
obsessed with ratings, which should reduce the amount of lowest common
denominator dross and improve the amount and quality of niche programming,
because they won't have the press and the Tories on their backs taking the
**** out of them for broadcasting programmes that few people watch.

Also, if they're subscription-funded rather than licence fee funded, then
the commercial sector won't be able to complain as much about them launching
new services, so they would be able to launch new services, whereas now
they've got no chance, because the commercial sector would have their gutts
for garters.


The US sourced offerings on our main channels are all populist (and
IMO crap, but that's not the point).

I don't see how you can call some of the US drama series "populist"
- some you can, but some you can't.

AFAIAA there is *no*
non-populist PSB-style US-sourced programming on the our channels.

Six Feet Under isn't populist.

[From HBO's website] "season 5 episodes 58-63" - that sounds very
populist to me.

The Sopranos isn't populist.

[Ditto] "The Sopranos season 5" - ditto.


I wouldn't call these populist. Populist, AFAIAC, means that it's pretty
lowest common denominator so that it appeals to a broad range of people, and
these don't appeal to a broad range of people, but they are popular in that
the people who they are targeted at (The Sopranos is aimed at young males,
presumably, because it's about the mafia). People value this kind of content
highly, but the BBC makes precious little of this kind of thing. The closest
you get to it is things like Spooks, but as good as I think that is, it
doesn't come close to The Sopranos.

As for other kinds of programming, HBO provides drama series and films,
apparently, so I obviously cannot provide different kinds of programming to
drama. HBO is just an example of what can be done if you have
subscription-funded TV - you can take risks. Six Feet Under is more risky
than anything big budget the BBC tries out, because if it fails it gets
chastised by the media.

Subscription-funding also adds a needed dose of commercial reality to the
BBC, so it has to up its game to retain subscribers.


So, if we follow the American business model, where is PSB going to
come from?

Funded by general taxation and made free-to-air, preferably, and
then the rest of BBC TV can be subscription.

See below ...

But don't forget Rome, which was crap.

1) There have been many more 'Planet Earth's than 'Rome's


Many more? Things as good as Planet Earth are few and far between, IMO.


2) Rome being crap doesn't have any relevance to my original point
about joint-funded/co-produced series being the nearest I get to
watching any US output.


But you're just one person in 60 million, and just because you don't like US
drama doesn't mean other people don't value it highly.


No, advertising increases the likelihood that you'll get lowest
common denominator ********, whereas subscription increases the
likelihood that you will watch fantastic programmes.

Looking at the current subscription alternative(s), where is your
evidence for that?

I'm actually drawing off an example in radio, because in the US
they've got subscription-based satellite digital radio systems (XM
and Sirius) which provide for every niche imaginable, whereas on an
ad-funded system the majority of the channels would never see the
light of day.

A) That's radio, we're talking TV, and ...

No, it's still applicable, because it's the "subscription model" as
opposed to the "advertising model".

But there are many aspects of radio in the UK (and elsewhere) that are
profoundly different from TV.
1) You can drive while listening to the radio, you can't while
watching TV, so you need mobile access to it.
2) Radio in this country has not required a licence since, IIRC, the
early 70s.
3) Radio in this country has been open access for so long that ...
4) No-one's radios are equipped with access modules, so to take out a
subscription in radio independently of TV would require new hardware.

If, however, you are referring to radio as part of a TV package, then
it makes more sense to talk about the TV directly, because none of
the above considerations apply, so why introduce a radio example?!


I'm introducing radio because the satellite digital radio systems in the US
are subscription-based and they show that niche programming is provided in
abundance, because they don't have to worry about absolute audience figures
for any given radio station on the system. It's also advert-free, in case
you're wondering.


B) That's America, this is here, and the US programming
environment is very different to ours.

I'm not saying that it can't work here, but the evidence so far is
overwhelmingly that it won't,

Sky is a subscription service, and like it or not, it's very
successful in terms of the number of subscriptions and it does
provide a very wide range of channels.

Aaarrrggghhh!

Sky is probably the *main* reason why so many people in the UK rush to
defend the Licence Fee!


But Sky has over 7 million subscriptions, and if these 7 million households
decide they're not happy then they will unsubscribe. The BBC doesn't have
this commercial pressure, and we're forced to pay for it whether we like it
or not. I think this pressure is healthy.


At any rate it manifestly *fails* to provide
the sort of channels that people defending the License Fee in this
thread have been demanding.


But I dispute that the BBC will start providing more lowest common
denominator crap if they were subscription-funded.


Despite being subscription-based:
1) It produces little or no original primary output except news and
sport.


That doesn't mean that the BBC won't.


2) It is riddled with advertising.


That doesn't mean that the BBC would start, or even be allowed, to have
advertising.


3) Virtually all its worthwhile output originated from terrestrial TV.


I very much doubt that, although we may be talking at cross purposes,
because clearly what I like and what you like are different things.


4) It is therefore sh*te value for money.


If it was ****e value for money then it simply wouldn't have over 7 million
subscriptions. These people are free to unsubscribe at any time. Many people
consider it excellent value for money, because there's so much content
available.


Name at least one, preferably several, HBO programme(s) that has/ve
been shown on British TV that those of us here might have seen and
can therefore express an opinion about.

Look at the first paragraph on he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO

Of the things listed there that I've seen anything of (I think 5),
there isn't one I would consider watching even in the absence of
anything better to watch, let alone any worth paying a subscription
for.


Okay, so you don't like HBO content, but I still think that the BBC would
provide more less populist stuff if they were subscription funded, for the
reasons I've given earlier in the post.


You may not like some of these series, but they've proved to be
*very* popular with UK audiences, and they're certainly not all
populist.

They may not have been populist originally, but by the time they get
to series 5 they're populist and, effectively, another soap.


The Sopranos is not populist. I doubt that many women watch it, put it that
way.


But that's fine, take any of them that may be there off BBC2/4, put
them on BBC1/3, ITV, CH4, Ch5, or Sky. Then those that want to watch
them can do so there, and I can hopefully watch what I want to watch
on BBC2/4.


The BBC rarely buys the more expensive US drama series, because seemingly it
can't afford it, or it's outbid by the commercial sector. It lost The
Simpsons, 24, football, various other sports......


I think it would be best to have 1 BBC TV channel devoted to true
public service broadcasting, like News, current affairs, religion
etc and have that FTA and paid for out of general taxation, then
make the rest subscription-funded.

It might work, if it was done right, but *NOT* if it's done anything
like Sky ...


I don't envisage it to be anything like Sky. Sky is Sky, and there's
absolutely no point in trying to compete with what it does. The BBC is the
BBC, and they would continue along the same lines as they are now, but with
a dose of commercial reality to get their arses into gear, and I have no
doubt they'd provide better programmes as a result of being more inovative
and taking more risks without fear of, or with much less fear of, criticism
from the rest of the media.


To make the whole exercise worthwhile, you'd have to rationalise the
channels, so that all the
artistic/wildlife/science/history/documentary stuff was on one
channel, all the soaps (in which I include long-running drama &
comedy series) on another, all one-off drama, comedy, films on
another, all the sport on another, etc, so that people can choose the
channels they want to watch, and then charge them on a per channel
basis.


Absolutely. You could envisage various packages, and you could envisage that
they'd launch new channels, which at present they wouldn't be allowed to.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

In article , Arfur Million
responded to my:
But some do it better than others. I simply listed a (long) list of
programmes that did meet the principles and that I might want to
watch/listen to yesterday if only I had time. I pointed out that it was
easy for anyone to make such a long list - no matter (within reason) what
their interests were - and that showed the value of the BBC.


And yet 1 in 6 people are unable to make any sort of a list that stretches
to 15 minutes viewing a week.

I don't believe that. It's certainly not based on any facts. I made a list -
but didn't watch or listen to much from that list. I did other things. But
that doesn't mean I don't value the chance of having the option.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ews.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
At least you are paying for a car tax disk in order to use a car.
You
don't have to buy a car tax disk in order to travel by bus. But you
do
have to buy a TV licence, which funds the BBC, even if you only
want to
watch other broadcasters' programmes.


One has to buy VED just to keep a vehicle on the public road,
irrespective of it's use.

Quite true, but it is still a kind of "use" of the car rather than
something else. The point I was trying to make was that the car tax
actually goes to fund the use of the thing you are paying for, whereas
if you want to watch any non-BBC television broadcasts you are legally
required to pay for something other than what you use.

Rod.

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message
om...
snip

At least you are paying for a car tax disk in order to use a
car.
You
don't have to buy a car tax disk in order to travel by bus. But
you
do
have to buy a TV licence, which funds the BBC, even if you only
want to
watch other broadcasters' programmes.


One has to buy VED just to keep a vehicle on the public road,
irrespective of it's use.


But one doesn't need it if one drives only on private roads.


Nor do you need a licence (heck you don't even need to be the legal
age), or insurance - although you would be mad to do so... What was
your point exactly?

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I've already told you that one is from the Open University (the
general science one, although it mainly consisted of engineering
courses),

Which courses? When you say 'General Science' course

I meant as in it was an unnamed degree - you just get a BSc, rather
than, say, BSc in Elec Engineering.

So it's quite recent. It used to be a BA whatever your course choices.


Right.


- do you mean the
Foundation Course (S100/S101...) and did you also take the
Technology Foundation Course (T100/T101...)? Which Engineering
Courses did you take?

BTW As D0100268 I'm a touch long in tooth OU-wise but I'm sure
aspects of my: A100
S100
DS261
SDT286
S225
A202
TM222
D303
A303
A402
and a few more whose numbers escape me,
must overlap yours. Maybe we even met at tutorials or summer
schools? Do offer more details.

No, I didn't do foundation courses, because I'd already completed an
undergraduate degree at a traditional university, but because I'd
taken a rather unconvential route though uni by changing course and
university at the end of 2nd year I wanted to learn some of the
courses I missed in the 1st and 2nd years of the course I moved to
(from mech eng to elec eng).

I only took 2nd year, 3rd year and post-grad courses.

Ones off the top of my head that I studied we

Digital Communications
T305
Radio-frequency engineering
?


T327


Architectures of computing systems (post-grad course)
M881
Putting computer systems to work (basically C/C++ programming)
MT262
Logic Design
?


T323


and maybe a couple of others that I can't remember.

Perhaps T209 or T293 in preparation for T305 - or even MST209

What was included in T305?


All sorts of stuff - it was a 60 points course.


It's a poor do if you're forgetting so soon though - I'm remembering
some of mine back to 1975!


That list might have been all of them, because I only needed about 180
points.


I only had to get, IIRC, 180 points, because I could claim
transferred credit because I'd already completed an MEng degree, so
that saved me having to do any 1st year courses.

That's taking the easy way. I have the equivalent of 600 points
(mostly 3rd and 4th level) under my belt + others studied 'for fun'.


Yeah, but I'd just completed a 4-year full-time degree at a normal uni... I
do plan to study some more courses "for fun" once I've got all the
engineering stuff I want to study done and dusted - I think I might do a few
maths, physics and astronomy courses.


I was impressed by the quality of all of the courses, because I'd
expected they wouldn't be as good as they were - I think it's mainly
because they're distance learning courses, so the course materials
have to be good or the tutors will get hassled every 5 minutes.

With the exception of the Introduction to Electronics course every OU
course I've encountered has been superb.


Yes, they are very good, and highly recommended.


But the coursework and the exams were a lot easier than in
traditional uni's, although the grading scheme does take that into
account, because
you need higher average marks to get a 1st, 2.1 etc than in
traditional uni's.

But you only took one third level course!


Architectures of Computing Systems was a post-grad course, and Digital
Comms, RF engineering and Logic Design were all 3rd year courses. The only
2nd year course I can remember was MT262.


In its first year of
presentation D303 was offered to students at a 'conventional' campus
based university as half a year's course and they complained about
lack of support - whilst we OU students were working full time and
arranged amongst ourselves study groups with a catchment area of 3 or
4 counties.
How easy it seems depends on how it's presented and your response as a
student.


I probably found it easy because I'd already just done 5 years of full-time
uni education (foundation course + 4 year degree) before I started the OU
course, plus the maths was easier than at the traditional uni.


The learning is second to none.


I wouldn't agree it's second to none. It's *very* different to doing it
full-time at a university. At uni you do a lot of practical work, they pile
on the coursework at times, you do quite a few big projects, courses are
nowhere near as self-contained as OU courses are, so you have to trudge to
the library all the time, search through an endless number of books till you
find what you're looking for (the Internet wasn't very good for finding info
then...), and the degree course is designed to give you the breadth coverage
of information that the department thinks you ought to have before you're
unleased into industry. That last point will have improved at the OU with
the introduction of named degrees, but I doubt OU graduates would have the
same breadth of knowledge as someone from a traditional uni taking the same
named degree - OU courses are bigger, because a 30 point course is a
quartere of a year's study, whereas at a normal uni we took about 10-15
courses in 1st and 2nd years and a few less in 3rd and 4th years. And we did
things like business and management courses even though we were doing an
engineering degree, because the department deemed it necessary to know about
these things, whereas I don't think a named engineering degree at the OU
would get you doing things like that.

In my day the 30 point course was described as half a credit. My S225 course
consisted of a one-sixth credit and one-third credit. The same year I also
studied a one half credit course and a one credit course.
No internet and my nearest academic library was 30 miles away. No computing
facilities and all my ANOVA statistical calculations were done long-hand
(4-function calculators cost nearly 100GBP) or with slide rule. The breadth of
knowledge may have been different - but not less.

I think the main difference in difficulty as far as engineering
courses are concerned is that 2nd and 3rd year exams at traditional
uni's require you to understand and use far more difficult maths
than you're required to understand at the OU. But as I say, the
grading scheme is different to take that into consideration.

That depends on the course. There are quite a range of Technology
courses at the OU - and TAD for instance had even less mathematics
requirement! ;-)


The RF Engineering course was the most mathematical of all the OU courses I
did, but the maths was tame compared to what we got at normal uni. It's
mainly down to the differences in pre-requisites, because you're expected to
have an A-level or equivalent in maths to get on an engineering degree, and
then we did 3 more engineering maths courses in 1st and 2nd years, which is
to get you up to the required level to throw some nasty maths problems at
you in exams at the end of 2nd year. The OU just doesn't have anything like
the same kind of pre-requisites, so they can't make the 2nd and 3rd year
exams as difficult.

Some of the OU courses I did required the equivalent of A Level maths or more
as a pre-requisite. The OU in general tended not to impose barriers where none
were required.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

At 20:38:09 on 12/07/2006, Roderick Stewart delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by announcing:

In article
ews.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
At least you are paying for a car tax disk in order to use a car.
You
don't have to buy a car tax disk in order to travel by bus. But
you
do
have to buy a TV licence, which funds the BBC, even if you only
want to
watch other broadcasters' programmes.


One has to buy VED just to keep a vehicle on the public road,
irrespective of it's use.

Quite true, but it is still a kind of "use" of the car rather than
something else. The point I was trying to make was that the car tax
actually goes to fund the use of the thing you are paying for,

Actually, it doesn't (directly). That's part of the reason it's now
called VED and not RFL. It just goes into general taxation along with
virtually everything else.

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
wrote:
snip

The BBC enriches the culture of the UK. Without it we'd rapidly
become even more of an American outpost.


This is what bugs me about the pro-licence fee people, you seem to
think
that changing the funding structure would stop the BBC making
anything
decent, which is utter nonsense.


But the fact show otherwise, the BBC would only be able to show what
people want, not what people need or might want - in other words
there would be no risks taken and there would be no PSB programmes,
to broadcast such programmes would mean that people would not
subscribe. You only need to see how ITV's output has changed obnver
the last 10 years or so, no PSB, no arts, no culture, just populist
programming.

snip


Bollox. It's only by severing the link between their obsession with
viewing
figures that we'll start to get a lot better programmes.

You're correct, what you said is total bollox!

That could only be done via the TVL, no commercial company can
survive offering what their customers need and ignoring what their
customers want - M&S almost went bust because they lost sight of what
their customers wanted whist supplying what they needed instead.

It should be funded
by general taxation for 1 public service TV channel, radio and
bbc.co.uk +
subscription for the rest.


Holiday to the USA and see what that approach has done for PSB in the
states, you will come back wanting a TVL fee increase! ATM PSB
funding is being cut back because those who control the funding have
decided that the money can be better spent elsewhere (things that
help them keep their jobs in other words)

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message
om...
snip

At least you are paying for a car tax disk in order to use a
car.
You
don't have to buy a car tax disk in order to travel by bus. But
you
do
have to buy a TV licence, which funds the BBC, even if you only
want to
watch other broadcasters' programmes.


One has to buy VED just to keep a vehicle on the public road,
irrespective of it's use.


But one doesn't need it if one drives only on private roads.


Nor do you need a licence (heck you don't even need to be the legal
age), or insurance - although you would be mad to do so... What was
your point exactly?

You keep on asking that. My point was that it is perfectly OK to drive a car
only on private roads without paying for VED - whereas it is illegal to view
only commercial channels without having a TV licence.

Regards,
Arfur