New service launching by the BBC and ITV later in the year.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/busines ... hp#image=1
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/busines ... hp#image=1
BritBox
- Thread starter Garno
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
transatlantic
Boom!
Garno":2g424ed5 said:
I'm not opposed to this, as I think it is probably the way to go, but I must admit, I do already find it annoying trying to find something to watch on all the different platforms.
I currently scroll through Netflix, Amazon, and then normal TV. So this would be yet another thing.
90% of the time, its all crap and I just end up watching youtube
transatlantic":k0y33jad said:Garno":k0y33jad said:
I'm not opposed to this, as I think it is probably the way to go, but I must admit, I do already find it annoying trying to find something to watch on all the different platforms.
I currently scroll through Netflix, Amazon, and then normal TV. So this would be yet another thing.
90% of the time, its all rubbish and I just end up watching youtube
Same here except we have virgin media so even more programs I never get to watch, Hopefully it will stick with British made programs as there has been some belters over the years.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
I remember a TV reviewer when satellite first started - I used to have five TV channels with nothing worth watching - now I've got sixteen!
beech1948
Established Member
Your issue of finding stuff can be solved but only by an industry wide agreement. The issue is that there is no usable common indexing system. Netflix, Amazon et al all try to use proprietary index/location systems as a competitive element instead of creating a common one which would then leave them only able to compete on content.
flying haggis
Established Member
The broadcasters say the move is not intended to replace ITV Hub or BBC iPlayer. Yet.................
should licence payers get it for free???
should licence payers get it for free???
craigsalisbury":2tc7v5mj said:
Not a lot of hassle really. Also if you are using freeview then the license is unenforceable anyway since they have no legal right to enter your home and no way to prove you are watching live TV. I know plenty of people who watch live non-BBC channels with no TV license and have done for years.
What a scam.
TV tax - I mean licence - payers fund the BBC, then they sell it back to licence fee payers...
I haven't watch live TV for 15 years now, and not paid the TV tax for 15 years. I never missed it.
TV tax - I mean licence - payers fund the BBC, then they sell it back to licence fee payers...
I haven't watch live TV for 15 years now, and not paid the TV tax for 15 years. I never missed it.
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,918
- Reaction score
- 1,342
craigsalisbury":3kl6iva0 said:
If you never watch any of the BBC channels (but watch others) how can you describe the output as "propaganda"? Do you have the 4 channels tuned out? Seems an odd situation to me.
Im pretty sure you don't need to watch the BBC, to read constantly everywhere about their bias and unfair representation on anything political or environmental. Now not to turn this into a brexit debate (for which im neither here nor there) but if you look at guest list for example on their political coverage, its very one sided.
BTW I have freesat, but we watch youtube/netflix and on the odd occasion some things like E4/food network.
I pay my licence, i would just prefer it to be moved to a choice, the same as netflix for example.
BTW I have freesat, but we watch youtube/netflix and on the odd occasion some things like E4/food network.
I pay my licence, i would just prefer it to be moved to a choice, the same as netflix for example.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I'm happy to pay a fee for the BBC output, which also covers radio programs. Are they biased? Probably. Are they less biased than most media sources? I think so.
Many years ago, I remember seeing a figure for how much ITV cost the average person, whether or not they watched it, through the advertising costs being ultimately funded by the consumer. I can't remember the exact figure, but it was reckoned that one commercial channel was costing the consumer more than the two BBC channels(plus all the BBC radio output).
I have no idea whether this was an accurate calculation, or whether it took all things into consideration, or if it would still hold good today.
What I can be reasonably sure of, however, is that I'm paying something, via increased product prices incurred via advertising costs, for a whole bunch of programming output that I never watch, and that, unlike the licence fee, which I can opt out of by choosing not to own a TV receiver, I can't opt out of advertising costs(well, OK, I could if I ceased consuming anything).
Many years ago, I remember seeing a figure for how much ITV cost the average person, whether or not they watched it, through the advertising costs being ultimately funded by the consumer. I can't remember the exact figure, but it was reckoned that one commercial channel was costing the consumer more than the two BBC channels(plus all the BBC radio output).
I have no idea whether this was an accurate calculation, or whether it took all things into consideration, or if it would still hold good today.
What I can be reasonably sure of, however, is that I'm paying something, via increased product prices incurred via advertising costs, for a whole bunch of programming output that I never watch, and that, unlike the licence fee, which I can opt out of by choosing not to own a TV receiver, I can't opt out of advertising costs(well, OK, I could if I ceased consuming anything).
So, is there a difference between you paying for BBC content with say an equal cost of the licence in the form of a subscription?
For those that want it, pay for it, for those that dont, they shouldn't be forced to just because they own a TV and for example watch food channels or commercial channels. If the BBC is subscription, then everyone wins.
For those that want it, pay for it, for those that dont, they shouldn't be forced to just because they own a TV and for example watch food channels or commercial channels. If the BBC is subscription, then everyone wins.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Another BBC rant thread. Brexit already rearing its ugly head. Only 498 pages to go to catch the other one. I'm off out to the workshop.
Fear not, I have no frogs to give for the "B" word.
It was merely a point that I see no reason the BBC can't use this as an opportunity to switch their service to a subscription model for those that want it. and for those that dont, we can get our rocks off watching YT "makers" (hammer) (hammer)
It was merely a point that I see no reason the BBC can't use this as an opportunity to switch their service to a subscription model for those that want it. and for those that dont, we can get our rocks off watching YT "makers" (hammer) (hammer)
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
How would that subscription be collected and enforced? Do most TVs have some sort of slot for content access authorization?
Mine doesn't, as far as I know.
I can't find any useful figures, except an estimate from 2014 of around 50%.
So if the BBC introduced a subscription, a lot of people would need to buy new TV sets or set top boxes.
This would probably affect the elderly(me) and the tight-as-a-ducks-arse(me again) disproportionately.
And I guess they'd have to turn off all Radio transmissions as well, as virtually no radio sets have the ability to control access.
So everybody wins.
Except the people who are quite happy with the way things are, who will have to fork out extra cash for new TVs, and everybody who currently enjoys BBC radio output.
I also found a figure of £20 a month, being what the BBC would have to charge if it moved to a subscription. I guess this is because fewer people would be paying, but I didn't read the article, as I was keen to get back here and stir up trouble.
The BBC is still the envy of the world, and if you go to the USA and try watching TV for a couple of hours, you'll understand why.
Mine doesn't, as far as I know.
I can't find any useful figures, except an estimate from 2014 of around 50%.
So if the BBC introduced a subscription, a lot of people would need to buy new TV sets or set top boxes.
This would probably affect the elderly(me) and the tight-as-a-ducks-arse(me again) disproportionately.
And I guess they'd have to turn off all Radio transmissions as well, as virtually no radio sets have the ability to control access.
So everybody wins.
Except the people who are quite happy with the way things are, who will have to fork out extra cash for new TVs, and everybody who currently enjoys BBC radio output.
I also found a figure of £20 a month, being what the BBC would have to charge if it moved to a subscription. I guess this is because fewer people would be paying, but I didn't read the article, as I was keen to get back here and stir up trouble.
The BBC is still the envy of the world, and if you go to the USA and try watching TV for a couple of hours, you'll understand why.
Similar threads
