5 ms·

Actually there is a problem with the BBC. In the UK how do you compete for news eyeballs and try and make it pay when the BBC news is for free? Imagine your b

Actually there is a problem with the BBC. In the UK how do you compete for news eyeballs and try and make it pay when the BBC news is for free? Imagine your business is weather forecasting, the same applies. Then there is the small matter of the license fee. Most people just pay it out of fear of being caught by one of the legendary detector vans. But you can't have a TV or a monitor that also does TV without being hassled for the rest of your days. It is getting that way online. I only listen to the BBC on DAB radio, if I sign in to their player thing I know I can't trust myself not to watch some lame series on iPlayer meaning I will have to pay up. The BBC has an important propaganda role in informing the national conversation and keeping British people British. I am not saying that cynically, that is what the voice of empire is there for. They aren't trying to sell you product, it is more subtle than that, essentially propaganda though, controlling the latitude of available thinking. They need to be more careful about closing down their reach as people like me go off-piste and start listening to stuff that would never make it onto the BBC. Once you have done that and realise the world thinks differently to the allowed BBC viewpoints there is no going back. I don't see this as the BBC standing up to the monopolistic evil Google, I also think the BBC are not whiter than white.

AJRF 8y ago
Hassled for the rest of your days is a bit much. You email, send them a letter or call them or I think there is actually a website that you can register on which remove's them questioning you needing the license or not. I did it and i've not heard from them since. Not exactly rocket science.
- keypress 8y ago
  Opting out is a hassle.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  >You email, send them a letter or call them or I think there is actually a website that you can register on which remove's them questioning you needing the license or not. // They used to send a postage paid envelope, and you could return their "you're a criminal" letter indicating that in fact their supposition was incorrect. Now, they don't include an envelope IIRC, certainly not postage, so you have to pay [a small amount] every time they decide to accuse you falsely of being a criminal. I'm against that in principle. So, I thought, I'll waste my own time and go online and fill out the form ... except they demand additional PII from you. Which I'm not happy about giving to Capita, and shouldn't need to, name and address should be sufficient for the legal purposes here. Thus, we're left waiting for them to make the next move. Which they did, they sent someone around: I stated we didn't watch broadcast TV and don't need a license. They went away. So, that's the end of it, right? Nope, they sent two people the next time, who asked for my wife (clue: license fee is payable against premises), didn't show ID, nor identify themselves in any way. When asked they said they "needed to come in" to check we didn't have a TV, they have no need to and no legal right of access [without a warrant]. When I made the same statement as before "we don't need a license ..., not using your services" they threatened "we'll just keep coming". Great huh. What really grates with me is that you have to register your details to even use the services on iPlayer now, so they would see clearly at the BBC end that we've stopped using their service. So, they presumably will continue to waste money until we get an injunction against them for hassling us.
- IshKebab 8y ago
  Yeah that sometimes works. Didn't work for us in uni though. A constant stream of spam with hilarious scare tactics. That said, I still support the licence fee. Eventually they'll require your licence number for iPlayer and then they'll probably be able to cut back on the annoying spam.
0815test 8y ago
They should just fund it out of general revenues, and dispense with the "license fee" entirely. Treat it as a marketing expense for the country as a whole, basically. The argument that they need an exclusive tax base in order to preserve autonomy is bogus - the monarch gets government funding too AIUI, do they have a dedicated tax base?
- Mindwipe 8y ago
  I suppose with the monarchy the argument would be that it's technically the Crown's money anyway, and Parliament just gets to administer it with her consent.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Right, but the queen doesn't have to decide how credulously or sceptically to treat claims painted on election campaign busses, dossiers of evidence of Iraqi WMDs, claims of historic sexual abuse, and so on. The BBC does. Thus giving them plenty of opportunities to upset just about everyone.
- ukoki 8y ago
  If funds aren't ring-fenced in some way, it's way too easy for a political party to threaten that funding in return for favourable news coverage. And it would make the BBC vulnerable to the classic libertarian trick they are trying to play with the NHS: * Cut funding for a public service * Wait for the quality of that service to inevitably go down * Say that it's terrible due to needless government bureaucracy * Privatise it
keypress 8y ago
I have the GA speaker version of the podcast player. And navigating, bookmarking and selection is horrible. To the point, I've abandoned it. I do listen to BBC radio streams, but most of this content, if the songs are available from other on-tap on-line services is a waste of a good format. I'd rather more podcasts, and playlists. There isn't much need for the live element. Or having 24hr radio.
m_t 8y ago
> Most people just pay it out of fear of being caught No, I'm sure a lot pay because having a good public service is important, even more in this day and age, compared to the Murdoch owned media you get in the UK. Of course the BBC isn't perfect, but it doesn't mean there's nothing to appreciate.
billpg 8y ago
I pay the license fee because I am required to by law. If I had the option of not paying and losing access to BBC channels, I probably would. I'd miss Doctor Who but they only do that every few years now.
- foobarandgrill 8y ago
  And it's been subpar the last few years anyway. They wasted Peter Capaldi's awesome potential.
Tsiklon 8y ago
Interestingly the BBC doesn't actually do it's own forecasting, only relaying information provided by the firm it's contracted - Weather forecasting is done by a few companies in the UK, of which the BBC has a contract with one (MeteoGroup) and I believe ITV has a contract with another (the MetOffice).
- Theodores 8y ago
  Historically the BBC has always got their data for free from the Met Office. I don't watch BBC these days but there is the matter of presentation and doing the graphics. So it can be contracted out under 'producers choice'. For a long time the Met Office had their private arm. So if ITV et al. get the private version of the Met Office and the BBC have the Met Office then it can be hard to get in to that business. A lot of things that make sense with a state ownership model of the economy fall apart when you have things like 'producers choice' or the Met Office expected to make a buck in the private sector. Ultimately though there are two sources for weather information and it comes down to who gets the observations data and who has the super computers. In the USA they have the public/private model right. The government has the computer and the data is available for free. In the UK (the only other place with the observations/supercomputer combo) the idea is to make money off it in this weird privatised state business sector that the Met Office finds itself in. The internet makes the data a commodity of sorts, who knows where it comes from and how accurate it really is. In the olden days of regional TV you would have actual forecasters who knew their area. Imagine you have a lake in the Alps and the computer gives you the data for the mountain top for the town by the lake below. The nearest observations come from the airport on the other side of the lake. A professional forecaster who knows the observations for that town would be able to work it out properly and have an informed guess for the town, and hack the model accordingly. The BBC and other broadcasters have stepped away from having that aspect of local TV with the human aspect of a quality weather forecast. I guess it matters not if the observation data is getting better.

AJRF 8y ago

Hassled for the rest of your days is a bit much. You email, send them a letter or call them or I think there is actually a website that you can register on which remove's them questioning you needing the license or not. I did it and i've not heard from them since. Not exactly rocket science.

keypress 8y ago
Opting out is a hassle.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>You email, send them a letter or call them or I think there is actually a website that you can register on which remove's them questioning you needing the license or not. // They used to send a postage paid envelope, and you could return their "you're a criminal" letter indicating that in fact their supposition was incorrect. Now, they don't include an envelope IIRC, certainly not postage, so you have to pay [a small amount] every time they decide to accuse you falsely of being a criminal. I'm against that in principle. So, I thought, I'll waste my own time and go online and fill out the form ... except they demand additional PII from you. Which I'm not happy about giving to Capita, and shouldn't need to, name and address should be sufficient for the legal purposes here. Thus, we're left waiting for them to make the next move. Which they did, they sent someone around: I stated we didn't watch broadcast TV and don't need a license. They went away. So, that's the end of it, right? Nope, they sent two people the next time, who asked for my wife (clue: license fee is payable against premises), didn't show ID, nor identify themselves in any way. When asked they said they "needed to come in" to check we didn't have a TV, they have no need to and no legal right of access [without a warrant]. When I made the same statement as before "we don't need a license ..., not using your services" they threatened "we'll just keep coming". Great huh. What really grates with me is that you have to register your details to even use the services on iPlayer now, so they would see clearly at the BBC end that we've stopped using their service. So, they presumably will continue to waste money until we get an injunction against them for hassling us.
IshKebab 8y ago
Yeah that sometimes works. Didn't work for us in uni though. A constant stream of spam with hilarious scare tactics. That said, I still support the licence fee. Eventually they'll require your licence number for iPlayer and then they'll probably be able to cut back on the annoying spam.

0815test 8y ago

They should just fund it out of general revenues, and dispense with the "license fee" entirely. Treat it as a marketing expense for the country as a whole, basically. The argument that they need an exclusive tax base in order to preserve autonomy is bogus - the monarch gets government funding too AIUI, do they have a dedicated tax base?

Mindwipe 8y ago
I suppose with the monarchy the argument would be that it's technically the Crown's money anyway, and Parliament just gets to administer it with her consent.
michaelt 8y ago
Right, but the queen doesn't have to decide how credulously or sceptically to treat claims painted on election campaign busses, dossiers of evidence of Iraqi WMDs, claims of historic sexual abuse, and so on. The BBC does. Thus giving them plenty of opportunities to upset just about everyone.
ukoki 8y ago
If funds aren't ring-fenced in some way, it's way too easy for a political party to threaten that funding in return for favourable news coverage. And it would make the BBC vulnerable to the classic libertarian trick they are trying to play with the NHS: * Cut funding for a public service * Wait for the quality of that service to inevitably go down * Say that it's terrible due to needless government bureaucracy * Privatise it

keypress 8y ago

I have the GA speaker version of the podcast player. And navigating, bookmarking and selection is horrible. To the point, I've abandoned it. I do listen to BBC radio streams, but most of this content, if the songs are available from other on-tap on-line services is a waste of a good format. I'd rather more podcasts, and playlists. There isn't much need for the live element. Or having 24hr radio.

m_t 8y ago

> Most people just pay it out of fear of being caught No, I'm sure a lot pay because having a good public service is important, even more in this day and age, compared to the Murdoch owned media you get in the UK. Of course the BBC isn't perfect, but it doesn't mean there's nothing to appreciate.

billpg 8y ago

I pay the license fee because I am required to by law. If I had the option of not paying and losing access to BBC channels, I probably would. I'd miss Doctor Who but they only do that every few years now.

foobarandgrill 8y ago
And it's been subpar the last few years anyway. They wasted Peter Capaldi's awesome potential.

Tsiklon 8y ago

Interestingly the BBC doesn't actually do it's own forecasting, only relaying information provided by the firm it's contracted - Weather forecasting is done by a few companies in the UK, of which the BBC has a contract with one (MeteoGroup) and I believe ITV has a contract with another (the MetOffice).

Theodores 8y ago
Historically the BBC has always got their data for free from the Met Office. I don't watch BBC these days but there is the matter of presentation and doing the graphics. So it can be contracted out under 'producers choice'. For a long time the Met Office had their private arm. So if ITV et al. get the private version of the Met Office and the BBC have the Met Office then it can be hard to get in to that business. A lot of things that make sense with a state ownership model of the economy fall apart when you have things like 'producers choice' or the Met Office expected to make a buck in the private sector. Ultimately though there are two sources for weather information and it comes down to who gets the observations data and who has the super computers. In the USA they have the public/private model right. The government has the computer and the data is available for free. In the UK (the only other place with the observations/supercomputer combo) the idea is to make money off it in this weird privatised state business sector that the Met Office finds itself in. The internet makes the data a commodity of sorts, who knows where it comes from and how accurate it really is. In the olden days of regional TV you would have actual forecasters who knew their area. Imagine you have a lake in the Alps and the computer gives you the data for the mountain top for the town by the lake below. The nearest observations come from the airport on the other side of the lake. A professional forecaster who knows the observations for that town would be able to work it out properly and have an informed guess for the town, and hack the model accordingly. The BBC and other broadcasters have stepped away from having that aspect of local TV with the human aspect of a quality weather forecast. I guess it matters not if the observation data is getting better.