5 ms·

Given I'm forced to pay for the BBC a fee for a service I don't use. I'd prefer they did it as cheaply as possible, maybe it will stop it getting even more expe

by pipes 3y ago

Given I'm forced to pay for the BBC a fee for a service I don't use. I'd prefer they did it as cheaply as possible, maybe it will stop it getting even more expensive. The BBC's job isn't to create nice jobs.

nxobject 3y ago
What do you mean by "nice jobs"?
- haltIncomplete 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - morkalork 3y ago
    Can't help but think their brains have been poisoned by Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black. See the same in Canada with people crying foul over the CBC being taxpayer funded. As if the state ceding 100% of news media to private, corporate interests would be for the betterment of society.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dingnuts 3y ago
      Free countries don't need their own Pravda. For every Murdoch there's a dozen other channels, and anyway, Facebook is worse for radicalization than any Murdoch property. The State has press releases, and the ability to command attention for speeches simply due to their monopoly on force. That's sufficient; there doesn't need to be a full time propaganda wing for the people to hear the perspective of the state
      - DrScientist 3y ago
        You are confused about the role of the BBC. It's not there for state propaganda ( though that happens - as with any broadcaster ), it's mission is more parentalistic - ( Yep I've invented a word to cover maternalistic/paternalistic. ) Ask yourself - if the BBC was such a state machine - why do members of the government complain about it's output so much? It's there to lift the nation culturally, to create a British identity and social cohesion - to inform, educate, and entertain. To be a positive inspirational force. It's not a single entity, with a single voice - but a sum of it's employees. > For every Murdoch there's a dozen other channels, I'm not sure quantity is the best metric here....
    - johnisgood 3y ago
      Well, the answer lies in the answers to these questions: what happens if you do not pay the fee for BBC, a service you do not use? What happens if it is private? Do not, in the former, you risk getting caged? Whereas if it is a private company, you do not risk your freedom? I do not like the idea of being thrown into jail for not paying for a service I do not use. I do not use Netflix, and that is fine, it has no dire consequences. What are the consequences of not paying for BBC? Genuinely curious, because I am not sure.
- aaron695 3y ago
  [dead]
4rt 3y ago
I'll bite, who's forcing you to "pay for the BBC a fee for a service" you don't use?
- defrost 3y ago
  The hassle of "opting out" might be the force referred to: The cat detector van can pinpoint a purr at 500 yards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
  - unobatbayar 3y ago
    This is very real. They also give you notice before their surveillance scan.
    - exodust 3y ago
      Surely this can't be real any more! Like the wikipedia article says, modern digital signals and flat screens means correlating a set's emissions with a particular licensed broadcast is "difficult"! I'd say impossible. For a van parked outside to determine you're watching BBC and not something else? Laughably impossible! Unless they peep through your windows?
      - defrost 3y ago
        > Unless they peep through your windows? If you search|scroll down the TV Licence article for "In 2013 it was revealed..." these days they can literally match flickering light seen through the window bouncing off the ceiling against currently broadcasting BBC | Channel 5, ITV, etc broadcasts. See: Optical detectors
        exodust 3y ago
        Interesting privacy issue. Personally I'd want to protect my own home's "light emissions" from peeping toms. My home, my light! It's remarkable anyone thinks it's okay for a licensing authority to adopt this Orwellian creepiness. The slippery slope is technology increasingly reveals more detail from incidental light and audio coming from private households. We should act now in policy-making to protect this information as we do or should do for biometric data.
Havoc 3y ago
It’s not that hard to opt out. Don’t even recall what I had to do that’s how fast it was

by pipes 3y ago

nxobject 3y ago

What do you mean by "nice jobs"?

haltIncomplete 3y ago
[flagged]
- morkalork 3y ago
  Can't help but think their brains have been poisoned by Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black. See the same in Canada with people crying foul over the CBC being taxpayer funded. As if the state ceding 100% of news media to private, corporate interests would be for the betterment of society.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dingnuts 3y ago
    Free countries don't need their own Pravda. For every Murdoch there's a dozen other channels, and anyway, Facebook is worse for radicalization than any Murdoch property. The State has press releases, and the ability to command attention for speeches simply due to their monopoly on force. That's sufficient; there doesn't need to be a full time propaganda wing for the people to hear the perspective of the state
    - DrScientist 3y ago
      You are confused about the role of the BBC. It's not there for state propaganda ( though that happens - as with any broadcaster ), it's mission is more parentalistic - ( Yep I've invented a word to cover maternalistic/paternalistic. ) Ask yourself - if the BBC was such a state machine - why do members of the government complain about it's output so much? It's there to lift the nation culturally, to create a British identity and social cohesion - to inform, educate, and entertain. To be a positive inspirational force. It's not a single entity, with a single voice - but a sum of it's employees. > For every Murdoch there's a dozen other channels, I'm not sure quantity is the best metric here....
  - johnisgood 3y ago
    Well, the answer lies in the answers to these questions: what happens if you do not pay the fee for BBC, a service you do not use? What happens if it is private? Do not, in the former, you risk getting caged? Whereas if it is a private company, you do not risk your freedom? I do not like the idea of being thrown into jail for not paying for a service I do not use. I do not use Netflix, and that is fine, it has no dire consequences. What are the consequences of not paying for BBC? Genuinely curious, because I am not sure.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

4rt 3y ago

I'll bite, who's forcing you to "pay for the BBC a fee for a service" you don't use?

defrost 3y ago
The hassle of "opting out" might be the force referred to: The cat detector van can pinpoint a purr at 500 yards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
- unobatbayar 3y ago
  This is very real. They also give you notice before their surveillance scan.
  - exodust 3y ago
    Surely this can't be real any more! Like the wikipedia article says, modern digital signals and flat screens means correlating a set's emissions with a particular licensed broadcast is "difficult"! I'd say impossible. For a van parked outside to determine you're watching BBC and not something else? Laughably impossible! Unless they peep through your windows?
    - defrost 3y ago
      > Unless they peep through your windows? If you search|scroll down the TV Licence article for "In 2013 it was revealed..." these days they can literally match flickering light seen through the window bouncing off the ceiling against currently broadcasting BBC | Channel 5, ITV, etc broadcasts. See: Optical detectors
      - exodust 3y ago
        Interesting privacy issue. Personally I'd want to protect my own home's "light emissions" from peeping toms. My home, my light! It's remarkable anyone thinks it's okay for a licensing authority to adopt this Orwellian creepiness. The slippery slope is technology increasingly reveals more detail from incidental light and audio coming from private households. We should act now in policy-making to protect this information as we do or should do for biometric data.

Havoc 3y ago

It’s not that hard to opt out. Don’t even recall what I had to do that’s how fast it was