How do you feel about the BBC?

[ansel123]

I am an american and just read that the BBC is funded by those with a tv paying an annual fee of about $200. I find this astounding that this happens. We would probably die laughing at the thought after we ran them out of business here. I can't fathom the reason that TV owners should fund a news organization in 2003. Perhaps the UK is more laid back about excessive taxes, but we would kill them if they had the audacity to put forth such a proposal. Why are they not self sufficient like every other news organization?

[Geezer]

They are not just a news channel, they are supposed to educate inform and entertain. The reason they are funded by the taxpayer is because they dont have ad breaks.



How do i feel about paying the tv licence, i dont really agree with the fee anymore because the bbc's standards have been slipping for years now

[ditton]

the beeb is not just a news organisation. its a cultural institution, an icon even. some over this side of the pond wonder a lot about some of your icons. that flag for example. its just a flag. I could go on about where your tax dollars do get spent, and to what purpose.



as to the quality of radio and television broadcasts ... I think there is no comparison.



the beeb does and should get a lot of kicking, but please dont imply that public funding, not subsidy from direct taxation, is inherently abberant. That's an attempt at cultural imperialism that just wont wash.



welcome to AVTalk, by the way ;)~;-)~:wink:

[ansel123]

Cultural imperialism? Hmm. Why should someone pay for something they may not watch? I can't imagine how angry I would feel when my $200 bill came. Why don't they sell ads to support themselves? Too capitalistic? This is 2003 not 1950. Cheers, long live the UK!

[mcmullanbrush]

The license fee is unfair. If the BBC is so great, it should become a subscription channel, then we would see how many people will pay for it given a choice.

[ditton]

clearly your cultural values are such that you would not want to pay the 'licence fee'. I agree that's a dated idea, and does amount to a tax on use of a broadcast-dependent television.



technology is moving on so that there is access to non-broadcast television, and maybe therefore tax evasion (or avoidance).



what remains is that 'public service', not-for-profit activities are paid for here in ways different from in the US, which I believe delivers a better standard of programming overall - including better from the commercial (paid by advertising) channels.



it is cultural imperialism to impose your cultural values in judgement of another society's activities. now this may be true with repect to female circumscion (where claim to human rights might override such inhibitions) or non-democatic government (but lets not go there ... ), but when it come to how we spend our money (on publically-funded health schemes, etc) you are not wise to blunder about.



I recall we fell out over taxing cups of tea! ;)~;-)~:wink:

[ansel123]

EXACTLY!!!!! That is the gist of my point. No organization should be allowed to exact a fee by law, but should rise or fall on its ability to attract and keep viewers.

[ditton]

I suggest that you write to your Member of Parliament about the matter.

[Madge]

The following opinion is sponsored by Retardyne, in your water by Federal mandate since 1953


Cultural imperialism? Hmm. Why should someone pay for something they may not watch? I can't imagine how angry I would feel when my $200 bill came. Why don't they sell ads to support themselves? Too capitalistic? This is 2003 not 1950. Cheers, long live the UK!


The previous opinion was sponsored by Retardyne, in your water by Federal mandate since 1953.



Tell me you don't find that insulting :lol:

Most American TV is dumbed down over comercialised crap. It's easy to see why, when the production company has to sell it to the network and it's affiliates, who have to sell it to their advertisers and corporate sponsors. Some of the best of British (and by extension American TV) on paper appears to be totally unsellable, so without government subsidy it would never get made. w) That the -removed-s keep failing to do so, and instead churn out 75% crap just shows how much of shakeup is needed.

$200 can't buy you that other 25% though.

[ansel123]

You miss the point. None of that "crap" is subsidized by law. It is your freedom to watch or turn it off. No one presents you with a bill for something you don't watch or don't like. It is quite elitist of you to mandate into law what broadcast content others should support with their dollars (or pounds) It should be on subscription and OFF the government dole. Then it will rise or fall on its merits, not on the back of the average taxpayer.

[ditton]

You miss the point. None of that "crap" is subsidized by law. It is your freedom to watch or turn it off. No one presents you with a bill for something you don't watch or don't like. It is quite elitist of you to mandate into law what broadcast content others should support with their dollars (or pounds) It should be on subscription and OFF the government dole. Then it will rise or fall on its merits, not on the back of the average taxpayer.




1. the end result matters. I want good stuff not crap.



2. schooling is mandated by law, both attendence and its content, paid for by tax



listen to some radio, its free, and the best is most obviously from the beeb

[martintyler]

The BBC has no commercial breaks.. our other channels do have them, but nothing like in the states.



I find watching TV in the states very difficult actually.. that may sound stupid to an american who is used to it, however, its not just the number of breaks and the length of them, but also they way they go from the program to a commercial in a split second.. no short pause, no 'end of part one' nothing.



Correct me if i am wrong, but when i watched the simpsons the first commercial break is right after the openning credits!!

[ansel123]

Surely, Schooling and broadcast content are completely different animals. My question is what about those who DON'T like the BBC. Why should they support your preference with their money? It is much like a radio that plays only jazz music and charges EVERYONE to support its operation but many may not like jazz but like rap or classical or rock. Why should they pay by law to support that station?

[adox]

You miss the point. None of that "crap" is subsidized by law. It is your freedom to watch or turn it off. No one presents you with a bill for something you don't watch or don't like. It is quite elitist of you to mandate into law what broadcast content others should support with their dollars (or pounds) It should be on subscription and OFF the government dole. Then it will rise or fall on its merits, not on the back of the average taxpayer.




we over here in ireland pay a tv licence too, and it is to fund the national broadcaster rte.it is not a system that is unique to the british.

different cultures have different ways. weather it is right or wrong to charge for a tv licence is one thing,but with regards to the bbc(which we receive here in ireland too)it is a breath of fresh air to watch a channel that has no commercial breaks.

[ditton]

next step on, for which I have some sympathy, is to assert that TV advertisments are the higher form of art, and they, of course are paid for by ....

[martintyler]

Surely, Schooling and broadcast content are completely different animals. My question is what about those who DON'T like the BBC. Why should they support your preference with their money? It is much like a radio that plays only jazz music and charges EVERYONE to support its operation but many may not like jazz but like rap or classical or rock. Why should they pay by law to support that station?




I dont know if you have the equivalent in the states, but there are lots of things funded by taxes.. closest to this topic would be 'the arts' a lot of money gets given to fund the arts.. you pay tax by law whether you go and watch a ballet funded by your taxes or not. The BBC license fee is similar really, just more direct.

[ansel123]

I don't doubt that the BBC has an audience, my central question is the fairness of charging someone to support it if they don't want to watch or listen. Can it not garner enough support on its own merits to support itself? And if it can't isn't that proof of the inequity of charging people a fee to support it?

[ditton]

because I pay national Income Tax, and a proportion of this goes towards local government services, I actually make a small contribution to the street lighting outside your house. so too does the little old lady, who pays indirect taxes, even though she never goes out at night.



street lighting, as with broadcast material, has 'externalities', that is benefits that cannot be 'trapped' to ensure that the only the end user pays - as is the case when I buy my beer, bread and concert ticket. funding for that 'broadcast' material must be raised somehow. doing so by advertising does seem to lower rather than raise the standard of the experience. private donation might do it, we tried that with museums - talking of which are you bothered about your tax dollars supporting federal museums that only a fraction ever make use of?

[Squirrelecto]

I hardly watch TV these days, but when I do it's BBC channels I usually turn to. Licence fee or subscription, I care not - I'd still pay it because I'd not have much left without it apart from Channel 4, which stands alone in being the only commercially-funded channel that consistently churns out decent programming.



Incidentally, News 24 is just about the only news channel I can bear to watch on Freeview, the rest all feel like Newsround, dumbed down and glitz-ified for the masses.



I'd hate for UK television to go the way of the American model - 1 hour programmes with 20 minutes of adverts. Sports split into quarters to please the broadcasters and advertisers. Yikes! No thanks!

[ansel123]

I have no problem with someone paying whatever they want to watch the BBC. More power to them.I have yet to hear from anyone about the people who don't want to watch BBC but something else, why should they by law support the BBC? The arts are a good comeback, but that is many museums that have a chance of funding, not ONE museum. Someone who buys a canvas and paint does not pay a fee to support the arts, why a tv buyer?

[ditton]

I forgot to add that some forms of private donation, like the God channels, are not, I think, the way to go in general. as for that Murdoch man, or even the Prime Minister of Italy ...

[ansel123]

I wonder if I asked the average person, " Would you rather have in 5 years 1000 pounds and a few interruptions in TV or no pounds in your pocket and a commercial free BBC? I bet I know what they would pick.

[ditton]

slagging off the Beeb as a museum is a good. I think you're beginning to assimilate - awlright mate!



get your own back, watch all the Beeb channels; twiddle those dials, listen to the Archers ...

[ditton]

I wonder if I asked the average person, " Would you rather have in 5 years 1000 pounds and a few interruptions in TV or no pounds in your pocket and a commercial free BBC? I bet I know what they would pick.




you can catch him on the Clapham omnibus ...

[Squirrelecto]

I wonder if I asked the average person, " Would you rather have in 5 years 1000 pounds and a few interruptions in TV or no pounds in your pocket and a commercial free BBC? I bet I know what they would pick.


The TV licence fee is only £116 a year.

[ansel123]

Sorry Charlie, The BBC is not a museum, just a broadcast org, no different then ABC, CNN or MSNBC. They just cloak themselves in british tradtion in order to pick your pocket.

[ditton]

Sorry Charlie, The BBC is not a museum, just a broadcast org, no different then ABC, CNN or MSNBC. They just cloak themselves in british tradtion in order to pick your pocket.




that's not quite what I was saying, but never mind.



My advice, if you're staring at this TV Detector Van that's just come round the corner, is pay the thing. It's not winnable in court.



[I've just realised that this is the first time I've browsed thisparticular forum - exciting isn't it ;)~;-)~:wink: Perhaps just a little too exciting - I wonder what's on the telly .. I think I'll just put the kettle on and listen to Radio 3, or 4, or 1 or 5 or .... not 2!!! I'm not ready for that, her in doors is still to knit my cardy.]

[General Skanky]

I'll jump in here on my favourite topic. I really do hate the fee.



What's more, I'm very anti BBC.



Why the hell should they be the beneficiaries of the license fee? Their grip on this 'free income' drives me mad. The next review of the situation can't be far off now. Comes around every 10 years. It's archaic they get funded the way they do.



As for programme content/quality, I truely believe the BBC don't beat many ad funded channels.



So let's go. I'm here, ready and full of anti BBC rant. I've been through this war before and I'm pretty sure it was won by the 'anti' bunch last time! :lol: :thumbup:

[Squirrelecto]

[I've just realised that this is the first time I've browsed thisparticular forum


Only because I moved the thread here from General Discussion :D~:-D~:grin:

[Squirrelecto]

As for programme content/quality, I truely believe the BBC don't beat many ad funded channels.


Are you honestly saying you like the programming on ITV and Five? :o~:-o~:eek:

[ditton]

SG: so, that's why ... I was wondering. you scoundrel



GS: you only won 'cos we were watching lots of cool beep progs

[General Skanky]

Yes I do. :)~:-)~:smile:



Why, what's wrong with them?

[General Skanky]

Ditton, were you an adversary last time, another time, another place when we had this out? :lol:

[General Skanky]

IMHO, people defend the BBc because it's very British. Something to be proud of.



Yes it does do many wonderful things like the world service, but they should be self sufficient. I'm sick of funding things that hark back to 'the good old days'.

[ditton]

well no, not really - but this is fun!

[ansel123]

I still for the life of me can't fathom HOW they get away with this funding scheme. What is it, apathy, patriotism, politics, culture? We would burn the place down if they had the nerve to ask. Just think about how p1$$ed we were about tea, that's small potatoes to TV. ;)~;-)~:wink:

[ditton]

I still for the life of me can't fathom HOW they get away with this funding scheme. What is it, apathy, patriotism, politics, culture? We would burn the place down if they had the nerve to ask. Just think about how p1$$ed we were about tea, that's small potatoes to TV. ;)~;-)~:wink:




potatoes, now you're talking ...

[ansel123]

Good bye for now, going to watch some ad filled, low brow FREE american TV. Thanks for letting me sound off on a strange british institution. You really have a great country. Cheers!

[ditton]

Good bye for now, going to watch some ad filled, low brow FREE american TV. Thanks for letting me sound off on a strange british institution. You really have a great country. Cheers!




but my, how its upped your, and my, post count.



and welcome again to AVTalk, you know it makes sense.

[Madge]

Good bye for now, going to watch some ad filled, low brow FREE american TV. Thanks for letting me sound off on a strange british institution. You really have a great country. Cheers!


American TV, free? :lol: That's the best joke I've heard all year. Just work out how much unnecessary crap you've bought due to the saturation of your brain from advertising. I think it adds up to more than $200 a year. ;)~;-)~:wink:

[martintyler]

I remember years ago i lived with this girl in Austin, TX for a few months.. she bought a TV and video for the apartment and I was surprised you couldnt get ANY channels at all. Is that the same everywhere, or still the same now? What can you get for absolutely nothing, no cable, no satellite? and with cable or satellite can you get stuff for no subscription, just the installation charge?

[MyOtherAccount]

Americans have to pay medical insurance, regardless of whether they use the service, correct? Assuming you live a reasonably healthy life, your contributions are going to massively outweigh the use you put on the medical system.



The BBC is really no different. Everyone pays for the service so that it's there for everyone. Do i like paying £116 every year? Nope, but i'd rather that than have adverts every 5 minutes, spoiling my enjoyment of programmes that are already of suspect quality.



And don't get me started on the "impartiality" of your news output.

[General Skanky]

You can't compare a health service to the BBC license fee.



Firstly, I belive that Americans have a choice to pay or not.



2nd, even if they do and only claim once, I believe just about everyone agrees you'd get your money back in the form of an operation, long term health care when you're older, or lifetime GP - style support.



The BBC on the other hand offers nothing more than any other self sufficient channel. In this day and age it's outrageous we allow them to continue taking our money in this fashion. If I had the choice I'd not pay the license fee and do away with two channels I'd hardly miss. I think you'll find many other people would too given the influx of choice of other channles appearing in the last few years via Sky, Cable and Freeview.



Only people who still only have 5 channels available to them would pay as they'd have no choice.



I am totally against the 'unique way in which the BBC fund themselves'. I haven't actually heard a good arguement yet justifying the license fee.



For the good of the majority doesn't wash.

Keep up the quality doesn't wash.

It's an institution doesn't wash.

There will be too many USA style adverts doesn't wash.



Other than that, I've woken up happy and dandy this morning.



So bring it on. I'm ready to defend the anti license fee corner. :D~:-D~:grin:

[nicolasb]

There is a popular misconception that you don't have to pay for TV channels you don't watch.



This is absolute rubbish. Commercial TV channels are paid for by advertisers. The advertisers in turn raise the price of the products they sell in order to cover advertising costs. Thus EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU BUY A PRODUCT THAT IS ADVERTISED ON TELEVISION, YOU ARE PAYING FOR THAT TV CHANNEL, WHETHER YOU WATCH IT OR NOT. The amount that you pay for a channel is likely to be much the same, regardless of how the money is collected. The only difference with the licence fee is that it is collected and paid directly. You pay just as much for the commercial channels.



So that means that a licence fee is no worse than any other method of funding. But it can actually be better. The lack of annoying adverts is a relatively trivial affair - what matters is that it means the network is free to make programs without having to live or die by ratings.



Why is it a good thing to make programs that fewer people watch? Answer, because that way more people can watch something they like. If the sole aim of program-making is for each individual program to acquire the largest audience possible, what you end up is a situation where every program is exactly the same as every other program.



Say you come up with a format that attracts more viewers than any other - say you even manage to make a program that appeals to 40% of the viewing public (which would be very rare these days). Say that any other program attracts fewer people, so all programs are made to get that 40% of the audience. What about the other 60%? They end up with nothing they want to watch, while the other 40% have more than they can ever handle seeing.



In theory (and it has to be admitted that the BBC doesn't do nearly as good a job of this as it used to) a directly-funded organisation can make programs in such a way that close to 100% of the audience will find something that they enjoy watching. The only way to do that is to make some programs that only appeal to a small fraction of the population. The way that commercial TV works, programs like this never get made at all, because no advertiser is interested in paying enough money to have their adverts shown inside it.

[Sgt.colon]

I hardly watch TV these days, but when I do it's BBC channels I usually turn to. Licence fee or subscription, I care not - I'd still pay it because I'd not have much left without it apart from Channel 4, which stands alone in being the only commercially-funded channel that consistently churns out decent programming.



Incidentally, News 24 is just about the only news channel I can bear to watch on Freeview, the rest all feel like Newsround, dumbed down and glitz-ified for the masses.



I'd hate for UK television to go the way of the American model - 1 hour programmes with 20 minutes of adverts. Sports split into quarters to please the broadcasters and advertisers. Yikes! No thanks!




My sentiment exactly. I don't mind paying the fee. The BBC are at the top of the tree in TV world.

[General Skanky]

No misconception at all. You don't pay.



TV is but one of many avenues of advertising.Definately the most effective, but not the be all and end all.



I'd disagree with the statement that every time we buy a certain product we fund a channel. It's just not that specific. Too many other factors come into it.



An advertiser will 'fund' a channel on its merit. If it's crap they won't advertise there, simple. If the BBC became self sufficient and advertised, we wouldn't see an increase in price on the products we buy daily. There would simply be a re-shuffle of who gets what advertising revenue.



As for popular formats. I'd bet my right arm the BBC could cash in on the DIY/Gardening/Makeover gold rush going on right now.



As for what programmes get made for who is not really a problem.



Imagine, a variation of Sky. People could pick the channels they want, ie, someone may want music/film/sci fi, and yet their neighbours might want art/discovery/history channels. Spread that across the spectrum and people could <u>choose</u> what they want to pay for. And that's the point.



Sky do a relatively good job in that process. They are self sufficient. (I don't want to get into the politics of it all, just keeping to the principles).



The BBC hide behind the fee being collected for owning a TV receiver in one form or another. It's a sham. Have we all forgotten how they wanted to slap on extra charges for digital customers if they'd had their way? Insulting in the least. They will cling onto their license fee for as long as humanley possible. Why? Easy money.

[ansel123]

Well, I acame back for more. If you hate commercials, why not fund ALL stations? Why just the BBC? It seems there is an element of elitist socialism in many of these responses. I come down on the side of choice and freedom for the consumer. I trust the individual and the market to sort things out rather than politicans and bureaucrats. Free your selves. I also read one of these posts saying how we pay more for needless crap through tv advertising. 1. that is just left wing crap 2. the consumer here in america is very sophisticated and that is a big deal in advertising as people do not robotically see something and mindlessy crave it.

[martintyler]

the consumer here in america is very sophisticated




:lol: :lol: :lol:



Is that why they spend so much on advertising? So its the companies that are stupid for paying for advertising that these sophisticated comsumers arent swayed by?

[General Skanky]

I think I uderstand his point. The US is market led, not other. Therefore they determine by their habit/choice/opinion what ends up on the TV, not the advertisers.



One thing for certain, they don't get stung to pay for a service that they may not neccessarily want.



I'd also like to add, that imho, a lot of the best comedy, drama and films comes from the USA. I know not all of it, but they sure do know how to entertain.

[ansel123]

Millions of people watch TV, that is why they spend the money obviously. The CONTENT of the advertising is the key. My post was to that poster who feels that we pay for tv through mindless consumption. The consumer DECIDES what his needs are and if the company has something he might be interested in. Some of these posters seem like knee jerk left wingers and act as if the individual is too stupid to decide what he likes and is in his best interest. If you like the BBC programming, great SUPPORT IT, but you should not mandate that into law on the back of taxpayers. That is my post about the BBC, why FUND them through tax dollars. Why do they get the benefit of law and others don't? No one has answered that fully.

[ansel123]

MY OTHER ACCOUNT, we do not HAVE to pay Medical insurance, you have a choice. You are crazy not too. But it is not mandatory. I guess this is a culture thing. In america, almost nothing is mandated, choice rules and the consumer is king. The idea of a tv license is abhorrent to me as an american. Different mindsets I guess.

[martintyler]

I dont think anyone said it was stupid mindless tv watchers being swayed by adverts that pay for it... it is a fact that prices of products go up due to advertising costs.. but they also can come down due to economies of scale if they sell more.



I dont necessarily agree with the BBC licensing fees..but as I said before, there are plenty of things paid for by normal taxes that I dont use which I consider worse wastes of money.



I'd be interested to how many people that dont like the license fee actually watch BBC channels still. I feel a poll coming on :)~:-)~:smile: would you be happy to never watch BBC again if you didnt have to pay?



Ansel, you may have missed one of my previous posts.. what is the state of US TV, ie is there free to air channels, or is it all cable, satellite.. and if so can you get some channels after only paying a setup fee or is there always subscription charges?

[Squirrelecto]

That is my post about the BBC, why FUND them through tax dollars. Why do they get the benefit of law and others don't? No one has answered that fully.


We need channels that are as independent as possible. The BBC were the first UK broadcaster, so it's for historical reasons that they remain the one that we fund for independence.

[ansel123]

American TV falls into three camps. NO satellite, no cable= noTV n real terms. Satellite has 25-500 digital channels, which may or may not include up tro 20 movie channels( commercial free)Cable 15-150 channels, generally digital. The fees range from 20 -85 a month.

[ditton]

.. yawn ...

[Sgt.colon]

American TV falls into three camps. NO satellite, no cable= noTV n real terms.




You forgot no decent shows. :lol:

[ansel123]

HMM, yes, hollywood is a ghost town. No decent shows. Well we all can't have the mighty BBC can we. Yawn.

[adox]

HMM, yes, hollywood is a ghost town. No decent shows. Well we all can't have the mighty BBC can we. Yawn.




bbc world is available to a large chunk of the globe now :D~:-D~:grin:

[ansel123]

I know, it is FREE on my satellite. Thanks for the freebie!

[dunkyboy]

First of all - to say that the US doesn't come out with any good shows is ignorant and wrong. Certainly recently, the US has come out with some of the best shows I can remember. (Off the top of my head, here's a few: X-Files, Buffy, West Wing, Malcolm in the Middle, Scrubs, Simpsons, Family Guy... and I know I'm leaving a lot out. All high-quality shows, whether to your taste or not. I don't believe anyone can fail to find something they appreciate in American television.)



Now - to say that the consumer DOESN'T pay for advertising, and that to say otherwise is fanatical left-wing propaganda is also ignorant and wrong. Where do you think the money comes from? It has to come from somewhere. As a blatant capitalist, you must understand something about money! If a company wants to fund a television advert, it costs them (and television advertising can be hideously expensive). They have to either reduce the quality of their goods (if they want to maintain the same price point), or increase the cost of their goods. So one way or another, when you boil it down, the hapless customer DOES pay for the advertising that the producer pays for. I'm pretty sure you've all heard the saying that money doesn't grow on trees....... :roll:



As for my opinion on the BBC. Well, I'm a citizen of both the USA and the UK, and have lived most of my life outside of either country (mostly in Brazil, in fact), so I suppose I have a fairly unique perspective. From my point of view, the BBC has a strange sort of stranglehold. The licensing fee is an odd throwback to some bygone age that is still around because from what I've seen the British tend to assign a lot of value to tradition (why else is the House of Lords still around? :roll: )



If it were up to me, funding for the BBC would just be included in the rest of government funding for the arts and culture. As far as I'm concerned, the BBC is a British public cultural institution. It is incredibly valuable and as such should be preserved. As has been pointed out previously, the BBC provides a venue for television material that would otherwise be impossible to make due to indifferent advertisers. Some of the most valuable and important television programs in the world come out of the BBC (which ISN'T the same as saying no one else makes good TV!)



As far as I'm concerned, every country should have a government-funded television channel or two. ESPECIALLY for news. I believe BBC News is one of the most valuable institutions in the world at the moment. The concept of a news channel that is owned by a private corporation competing with other private corporations frankly makes me shudder. Such a channel will, by its very nature, report whatever it feels attracts the most viewers in order to satisfy the advertisers that fund it. Anyone who's watched American news channels will know just what I'm talking about (some are better than others, but IME they're all guilty of it to some extent). To all American residents, I suggest you check out news.bbc.co.uk from time to time in order to make sure your perspectives on the world aren't completely skewed. ;)~;-)~:wink:



Anyway, to sum up: I believe the BBC is very valuable, and should remain a publicly funded institution. I believe the current form of TV licensing is silly and outdate, and should be changed. As it stands, though, this is how it works and as such, were I to buy a TV I would be happy to pay the licensing fee.



My only real complaint, though, is just how mistrustful the TV Licensing company is towards people wo do not own a TV. I share a flat with two other people. None of us owns a TV, and none of us intends to watch TV. But the TV Licensing company persists in banging down our door, breathing down our necks, and generally threatening us with fines and all the other consequences of dodging the fee. I know several other people who do not own or watch TV, and the story is invariably the same. It is INCREDIBLY frustrating, and I'm quit thoroughly fed up. (One of the many reasons I wish the BBC was just funded like every other arts or cultural institution...)



Thanks for listening, folks!



Dunc



P.S. - Great idea for a thread ansel. :thumbup:

[ansel123]

This horse is getting tired but what the hell. You have people banging on your door to collect a fee? That's the problem, isn't it? It is not enough to FORCE a fee on people who may not want to watch the show but to hire people to collect it aggressively even from those without a tv is mind boggling. That is what happens when you let the government's camel nose peek in the tent, pretty soon the camel is inside and there is no way to get rid of it. About advertising, in real terms, TV is a cheap way to get new customers. Advertising is small potatoes to a large company, reaching millions of people. By the way, how did you like Brazil?

[nicolasb]

<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText">Quote:</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">
If it were up to me, funding for the BBC would just be included in the rest of government funding for the arts and culture.


Ah, but wouldn't that make the BBC even more vulnerable to interference from the Government (&quot;if you broadcast this we'll cut your funding&quot;)?

[dunkyboy]

This horse is getting tired but what the hell. You have people banging on your door to collect a fee? That's the problem, isn't it? It is not enough to FORCE a fee on people who may not want to watch the show but to hire people to collect it aggressively even from those without a tv is mind boggling.






I agree that this practice is wholely unwelcome and should be changed. However, I don't believe it has any impact on the value of the BBC, or its existence as a publicly funded organisation. (On that I think we'll just have to agree to disagree - which is one thing a lot of people feel Americans are bad at doing... :roll: )



<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText">Quote:</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">


That is what happens when you let the government's camel nose peek in the tent, pretty soon the camel is inside and there is no way to get rid of it.






LOL, that's a really bizarre analogy, but I know what you mean. The British government has historically enjoyed a position of &quot;untouchability&quot; towards its subjects, and from what I can see it continues to a certain degree to this day (and there is still an atmosphere of the people of Britain being &quot;subjects&quot; to the government, rather than the government being servants to the people). I think it is slowly changing (emphasis on &quot;slowly&quot;), though.



Sadly, as of 9/11 (and possibly before then as well) from what I can see it appears the US government is heading towards that direction rather than away from it.... But hopefully it will prove to be a flash in the pan and the US government will return to its previously (reasonably) transparent and accountable state (no pun intended...)



But I digress.......



<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText">Quote:</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">


About advertising, in real terms, TV is a cheap way to get new customers. Advertising is small potatoes to a large company, reaching millions of people.






Not necessarily... Certainly recently, marketing and &quot;branding&quot; has been eating up more and more corporate dollars (and by that I mean a greater percentage of companies expenditures). I remember recently reading statistics on just how much money is spend on marketing annually in the US, and it was truly humbling. Sadly my memory is a pile of dog poo and I can't remember where I read this, or what the figures where exactly. :( :roll:



Also, it's not enough to just look at the impact of advertising costs on a single company - as NicB pointed out, whenever a consumer buys a product or service from a company that advertises (anywhere), that consumer is funding advertising. So if you add up all the money you spend on products and services provided by companies that spend money on advertising, and then multiply by the percentage of the price of those products and services that is derived from the companies' television marketing expenditures, I'd be very surprised if the total isn't considerably more than £116...



Oh dear, that really wasn't worded very well... :( Sorry! :roll:



<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText">Quote:</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">
By the way, how did you like Brazil?




Brazil is great. :)~:-)~:smile: As a country it has many, many problems, but unlike a lot of the world's developed nations, it tends to move almost exclusively towards solving those problems...



The people are wonderful, the climate where I was (Brasilia) is a bit extreme at times (humidity frequently drops below 15% in the dry season, and the wet season is VERY wet, though temperatures are generally quite comfortable), but is generally lovely. Oh, and the barbeques (called &quot;churrascos&quot;) are just the best thing in the world! 8)~8-)~:cool:



It is a huge country (similar in size to the continental US I believe), though, and incredibly varied, so it's really hard to describe it as a whole. :)~:-)~:smile: To give you some idea, where I was in Brasilia, we were 1000 miles from the beach and 1000 miles from the jungle (probably the two things most people identify most with Brazil :nod: ). :o~:-o~:eek:



Dunc

[dunkyboy]

<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText">Quote:</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">
If it were up to me, funding for the BBC would just be included in the rest of government funding for the arts and culture.


Ah, but wouldn't that make the BBC even more vulnerable to interference from the Government (&quot;if you broadcast this we'll cut your funding&quot;)?




Hmm, that's true. Perhaps there is a place for QUANGOs after all... :o~:-o~:eek: It is a strange system, though. And I really don't think there's any excuse for the way the TV Licensing folk treat people who don't own TVs. (It's very much a &quot;guilty until proven innocent&quot; mentality.)



Dunc

[ansel123]

I always find it interesting to talk to people in different countries about my perceptions of them and their perception of the US. In the US, Government is a favorite whipping boy, because most americans find it wasteful, corrupt and incompetent. Note, I said GOVERNMENT, not AMERICA. The difference, from Europe as I see it is this. You are taxed and live in a (for an american) heavily subsidized culture. You can I guess actually see what the government spends the money on. Here, as a middle class person, you see no benefits, just an endless bill for entitlements, defense etc. We feel that the government is a voracious monster of money and should be starved at every turn.

[dunkyboy]

Hmm, I see your point. It does seem like a pretty raw deal if you're paying a fair bit of tax and not seeing any results. :roll: What is American income tax like? It's quite complicated here (as I imagine it is everywhere), but the basic gist of it is, everything you earn up to £30K (about $50K) you pay 22%, anything you earn above that £30K you pay 40% I believe. How does that compare to the US?



We Brits like to complain about our public health, education, and transport services, but in the end we do have them, and they do generally work reasonably well (/me dons heavy-duty asbestos armour :roll: ). For the amount of tax we pay, I'm reasonably happy with the level of public services we get, as long as they're continually improving (although with New Labour's 'private initiatives' things don't always seem to be improving...)



Anyway, everyone likes to complain about their government - that's hardly exclusive to Americans. :nod: However, I was under the impression that the sentiment you speak of - that the government is inherently bad and wasteful and must be cut down to size - is inherently Republican, whereas the general Democrat sentiment was a more 'European-like' left-leaning sentiment that government provides valuable services and as such should be adequately funded. Are you saying that Democrats no longer believe this, or am I mistaken altogether?



Like you, I'm always fascinated to hear the story from &quot;the other side of the fence&quot; so to speak. It's very easy to become wrapped up in your own little world and to think that you must be right and everybody must think like you, and everybody who doesn't is stupid and wrong (this I believe is the cause for much of the world's grief). This discussion is very illuminating, and once again I applaud you for starting this thread. :)~:-)~:smile:



Dunc

[ansel123]

Your question about the Democrats gets a little murky and will probably lose a little in the translation. The Democratic party by British standards is probably not very leftist. There are of course hardcore leftists in the democratic party and in my opinion near facists in our party. As a Republican, the Democrats, seem pretty leftist to me, but that goes with the territory.I would imagine my republican friends would consider the left wing of the labour party nearly communistic.I think that the history and culture of each country somewhat defines &quot;left&quot; and &quot;right&quot;. I do cringe when I see BRITS comparing BUSH to Hitler. I think that they trivialize the horrors of naziism by those silly comparisons. I really don't want to start a thread about Bush or his policies, just a thought.