I know im just on about Tv in general,it is direQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Printable View
I know im just on about Tv in general,it is direQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
If you are capable of viewing a broadcast in realtime (even satellite counts as realtime) then you must have a TVL.
Soooooooo you all dont want to pay for the BBC, BUT are outraged about the BBC losing F1 to sky and say that the BBC should pay more blah blah blah and how the F1 will be carp on sky. Think how many adverts the BBC would need to put in to fund the F1.
When watching a DVD version of a US tv program their half hour shows are 22mins and their 1hour shows are in the order of 40mins long...... Enjoy the adverts if we go truely commercial TV
Amen to that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
Ill stick to my TiVo box & record all the best shÃ*t using mobile phone remote acess when at work lol WINNAR!
Yes I am well and truely hacked off about the beeb getting rid of the F1, but theres a bigger picture its the overall sheer cost of it and the fact that the BBC throw the money away regardless, one of the main problems is and I state that the BBC is not accountable to us, license fee payers, in any part. The BBC certainly needs to be more open and transparent about the way in which it is run. For example, I could argue that the salaries of BBC talent must be published. Only this way can we have a full and open debate about what license fee money is used for, andQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
what the BBC should be paying its staff.
For example did you or have you ever agreed with the fees split in such a way that they spend £374million a year of the licence fees generated chasing the deprived and poor like single mothers for a licence fee that they can ill afford or in that a total £8.91 of everyone's licence fee went to the outstanding and highly moral Jonathan Woss in a payout to get rid of him, never mind his salary
£2.6 billion is spent each year on actors/presenters salaries, 40% of which are apparently paid more than 800k, 30% more than 300k, 20% less than 300k and the remaining 10% between £6 to £10.7million
so as my math goes and as no-one is worth more than 300k let alone millions, that equates to £1.3 billion in just the top 50% salaries, divide that between the 23million tv licences and it would save us all £56quid, nearly a third off the total fee....
I'm assuming there is a chunk of cash taken out of the TVL for infrastructure like transmitters etc. I guess you want those all turned to low to use less electricity to cost less etc, but then need more of them lol
Yes the people in the beeb get paid a fortune, but if you cut their cash by big chunks they would all leave and there would be chaff all on there. Granted there isnt much worth watching on the bbc channels anymore, and when they do make something I like they only do 3-6 episodes of the damn things (no not top gear, that can FOAD for all I care).
Incidentally, do you want Sky/Vergin to be transparent with their costs as they charge far more for the service they provide. Granted thats a choice but you can chose to not pay TVL with enough patience.
Just binning BBC 3 or 4 would save enough to cut costs and drop TVL or make better programming for the remaining stations. I remember when BBC2 friday nights used to be so damn good that I put nights out off till saturday/sunday lol
On the basis I don't have Sky - my cost of watching TV would go up so it would cost me more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by windfreek
Moan about something important - for example the fact that we're in dire need of landfill in the next 5 years unless we suddenly manage to become zero waste. That's an issue I'm interested in as it means we're going to get taxed a ****ing **** load on what we throw away.
You can have something receiving TV signal as long as it's not plugged in, anywhere, as it counts as a mobile device. I.E laptop with a free standing aerial running on battery not mains is fine as is your mate using his mobile in your house if you don't have a TV license, for the same reason.
Also the whole we can tell what you're watching from outside and detect you receiving signal thing is total bull to scare people in to paying. You can barely detect the tiny amount of radiation given off by an aerial receiving signal, and even if you could it's resonant, so it gives out er, the original signal, which there is an ever so slightly stronger source of, a fapping huge transmitter. So basically they sit outside your house and watch TV (without a license no less, mobile device/van!) but that's about it.
They also have as much right to enter your home and inspect your TV as a door to door salesman or TV selling thief does.
But all that aside, £140 quid a year lost in your bills of fuel, gas, electricity, mortgage/rent etc is hardly backbreaking. If it is then sack off the TV.
but the point is they still force ppl to pay for it regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK999
if i dont agree with the bbc's propaganda, i still have to pay to not watch it just so i can see a free station like ITV??
thats like saying the M6 toll, or any toll wont be charged anymore on the basis of if you use it or not, and just ramp your Road tax up another £300 a year to cover the shortfalls.
Europe is slowly turning us into the USSR of years gone by, and is all as a direct product of what Europe has caused by interfering, you have no further to look than your local shops been looted and torched as we speak all down to the youth having no respect nor the Police having any physical powers they can use without them been accused of police brutality or race crimes...
If i could, id get the hell outta dodge, but thanks to the recession I have none of my 10k savings left that i was gonna emigrate with....
I would say the country's cone to the dogs, but i doubt the dogs would want it either
Thats not really a fair analogy though; as Stu pointed out, a portion of the license fee goes towards infrastructure. People pay the M6 toll if they use the M6 (by driving on the road) - people pay the license fee if they use the TV (by receiving a signal via a transmitter, which was funded by the license fee... which everyone who watches TV does).Quote:
Originally Posted by windfreek
If they canned TG, that would save a chunk on the license fee no doubt. Sending Clarkson to Oz to do a 10 second one-liner skit probably wasn't cheap, especially when you consider he probably flew at least club lol Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me if it pays for itself, if manufacturers stick a few quid in the beeb's pocket to give a car a good review lol
Seen as BBC is public money though, surely a well-worded FOI request could reveal some figures?
No-body has mentioned that the BBC constantly advertises there other related channels etc and, at christmas time they advertise digital radios for sale......should be no commercial advertising!
The licenece should be £40 if they got rid of all the stupid salaries and rubbish, a bit like the government then!