Totally, my primary media source is the BBC, people like John Peel, David Attenborough, Humphrey Lyttleton etc just couldn't have existed on a commercial operation. We've had a 20+ page discusion on BBC funding at Downsizer recently, to be honest I'm just stunned at how good value it is compared to the other shit out there.

Raspberries and blueberries need at least as much attention as a couple of fruit trees...(do love that expression "U pick")

Just realised only one of them is still alive

I hope I'm not a grumpy old man, but I have sent 3 complaints to the BBC in recent weeks, about aspects of their service!
In each case, I've then got a conscience and added a final paragraph to emphasise that these are specific to what is the very best broadcasting service available, I think probably, worldwide - and iplayer is the icing on the cake.
I very seldom watch or listen to commercial broadcasting, either radio or TV, and I regard the licence as a bit of a bargain.
In case you're interested:
1. Putting the BBC4 logo in the top left, specifically in a series of art programmes about the pre-raphaelite brotherhood.
2. Mucking the programming about during the Wimbledon Tennis, for no good reason: i.e. up to 1984 there were still viewers who couldn't get BBC2, since then there should be no reason to bastardise BBC1. I've always wondered about the British attitude to tennis: For 50 weeks of the year most people aren't interested and have no knowledge of the game, for Wimbledon fortnight the whole nation goes gaga, as does the beeb: Strange.
3. Scheduling "The Wire" three nights a week over four weeks, but re-scheduling the finale, the nail biting conclusion to make way for a preview of a golf tournament(Not a crucial game) starting the next day.

Police state, penal colony? We had a mower stolen in the village 3 years back and we're always asking for more police presence to discourage speeding motorists: Don't see much evidence otherwise!

That would be a huge step backwards IMO (and in fact I was thinking earlier about posting to say that one of the huge benefits we get from the BBC+licence-fee system is that our digital TV and radio isn't encrypted). I can run DVB transmissions into the back of my Linux PC and timeshift/distribute round the house etc. the full native MPEG streams, a whole mux at a time if I care to. I can't do that with Virgin Media cable TV, not even with the terrestrial channels: the whole thing is locked-down inside their own boxes.

Peter

Amen.

Especially when you compare it to the £21.50 a month I pay for Sky, exactly how much original programming do they produce ?

I find it amazing that the BBC manage to produce the content for and distribute Radio 4 for only £100M a year. That sounds pretty efficient to me, for the amount of content they produce.

The possibility of encryption of the TV services has been discussed numerous times over that last 20 or so years. There was even work done on analogue video encryption in the early 90's using line shuffling and rotation techniques similar to what Sky were using on their analogue platform at the time (BBC Select).

I was at Uni just at the time digital terrestrial TV was launched in the UK and there were many discussions on how that would be the right time to begin encryption of these services. Certainly under the reign of OnDigital and ITV digital this could'be been possible since 100% of the recivers in use at that time had the necessary CI slots and the platform owner had CRM infrastructure in place. However, since they went royally tits up the proliferation of CI-less boxes and TV's in the market has made something like much more difficult to achieve without people having to fork out more money. Also, the cost saved in 'policing' the licence would then need to piled into making sure customer accounts are looked after and ensuring the encryption systems aren't bypassed.

However, if the BBC did go the encryption route I'm 100% sure they would use a system that allowed people to use CAM's in whatever system they wanted (ie. a linux box), unlike Sky who make sure you're tied into their hardware.

However, you've still got to figure out a way of encrypting all the FM radio services as well as protecting all the online material being read by foreigners or people who haven't paid their dues!

Seriously, you don't have a problem with the proliferation of CCTV? ID requirements? Over taxation? Especially when none of it seems to be really stemming the tide of crime. How's all that social housing working out?

My comment may have been charged and hyperbolic, but seriously, you're going to bring up seal hunting in Canada as some type of defense or counter point against the rampant loss of freedoms and oppression by the UK government of its entire populace? I can understand if I had been talking about fox hunting.

I didn't pick on the BBC and I didn't pick on citizens except for saying that the country is allowing the state to take greater and greater control of everything. The BBC would benefit from funding from wider sources rather than a license applied at or post-retail on a small number of products. I find it hard to believe they don't receive money from elsewhere in the government coffers anyway. They certainly get a lot of financial backing from other corporations and even governments (like the Canadian one) for select productions.

Anyway, the UK as a whole has produced the vast majority of my favorite artists and a decent number of some of my favorite TV programs and films. Far more than have ever or will ever come out of Canada. Would I like to see the same measures of government and state over-control here? It would sure help with that angst and rebellion that fuels the fires of so many great artists, but no, I like being able to wipe my ass without a camera shoved in it.

England, Ireland, Scotland and even Wales, are places I very much want to visit, but I'll make sure to bring along my foil hat.

I don't even know whether you're serious or just delusional now.

I don't think either of those is a good idea. Now you're talking about making the BBC into a sort of subscription service which misses the whole point. It's a national resource that needs to be accessible by the whole population. Might a well just make it a specialty channel on your Sky box otherwise.

3.5 million in-person visits. Wow. I'm not sure anyone's mentioned it, but since this conversation has slipped back to the BBC anyway, how much exactly is the license fee? If you're going to mention a per-product fee, do you know approximately how much is collected from each household or per-capita?

I stand by my assertion that this type of arts spending would better be funded from other tax moneys while having some protections in place to make sure funds aren't diverted to new helicopters, etc. Immediately that would remove the overhead of mailing campaigns, signage, enforcement manpower and vehicle fleet.

Wow, this 'ignore user' thing works really well..... Ahh, back to normality.

It is £142.50 per year, per household with a TV.

? Yes, I'm the delusional one. Facial recognition cameras, Automatic Number Plate Recognition. Where else is this not only tolerated, but being proposed?

I'll have to apologize if my pointing out the obvious has offended anyone's sensibilities. I'll drop this thread if it can't continue to be civilized because this is the last forum I'd expect or want anyone to be using an ignore feature.

Anyway, this wasn't supposed to be about the BBC, and especially not why anyone would think I'm opposed to it. My line of thought started out regarding that companies shouldn't be, and don't need to be, reliant on the government to regulate or control an industry or the landscape to help them be successful. Nor do private companies need the government to assist them in marketing their inventions. The greatest successes in the business world today are proof of this, including as I mentioned, the UK's own Dyson (which seems to be kicking ass globally right now).

A government can quickly stop representing the people's best interests and is not going to be a panacea for all business issues, let alone personal ones. Nor *should* it be. There's a balance to be had and in many countries things are very out of whack right now. Even in Canada and the US, we need to see some additional regulation and involvement in some areas/sectors and less in others. I did say "business" issues as opposed to "corporate" because some corporations (or their lobbying groups) are already tightly wound with governments and affecting too many policy decisions. This situation is the opposite of the government running the business and in many ways even worse.

On a semi-related note, I just saw The Union last night. A documentary on the US and Canadian pot industry, with a large focus on British Columbia. I had some small niggles with it, but by and large it was well done, and the interviews were excellent. It brings up the regulation issue with regards to marijuana and of course food, alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs.

It is hard to see what other sources there could be except for subscription or advertising (given that they already get some from merchandising and selling program rights). And it you don't understand that the BBC would be ruined by adverts, then you don't understand what is great about the BBC.

So that's the same whether you have one or ten TVs in your house or one or ten people in the family?

BTW, I did mean wider sources of tax money for that specific comment.

It is the same no matter how many people or TVs there are (though there are some discounts for elderly and partial sighted people, I fact I think it is free if there is someone in the household who is over 75).



If it came from general taxation then it would have been cut back repeatedly and the BBC wouldn't be what it is today. The government of the day often doesn't like what the BBC gets up to and the structure of the licence fee goes some way to protecting it from government cut backs while still allowing a system that doesn't need to be funded from subscription or adverts.

Exactly what benefit do you expect there would have been by funding it from general taxation ?

Or almost-normality -- you'll start to see these strange non sequitur comments, and wonder if you missed something, unless the BBS has figured out how to skip conversation branches, which it couldn't, before. If it has gained that ability, however, given the predilection on this board for threads to wander massively, and gloriously off-topic from the original post, you'll be missing some of the best the board has to offer.

I'd expect a more balanced and equitable distribution of the cost carrying, while at the same time likely being able to earn a greater amount of funding. Protections could be put in place to limit or negate the effects of the government-du-jour's ability to tamper with the funding, in the same way protections are in place now to prevent siphoning off those license fees to other interests.

I didn't know that they sold "The Daily Mail" in Canada!

We have more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world, but then, we're a very small, possibly overpopulated Country, it's probably proportional - they've never bothered me, and they've solved more crimes than DNA.

What ID requirements? if I lived in Holland I'd have to carry some identity, here not. It's being talked about, none of us want to see more terrorist carnage, and there's a price to pay.

Our top rate of taxation is 47% less than it was at one point in the 60's, but yes I'm concerned about the range of taxes that we have to pay: Particularly that global warming is a tax opportunity, rather than a social responsibility: But I suspect that that's no different to any other Country in the Western world.

We have crime issues, particularly lately knife crime, but our figures hardly lead the world in all areas and yes the latest figures are encouraging.

I'd comment on social housing, but I haven't a clue what you mean. Many people are enjoying the benefits of owning their own home, from the selling off of council houses, but that was 20 years ago.

If I have a concern, it's that, in the name of terrorist suppression, laws are introduced that we would say "too right" to and then a whole sub culture apply them for the wrong purpose: Councils use spy cameras for litter issues, boneheaded security men stop people taking photos in public places etc. Then the media get hold of it and blow it out of all proportion and people in foreign places grab totally erroneous perceptions.

Umm.... Canada?

Facial Recognition, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (heck, Canadian research on the subject even makes it in IEEE.

Remember, just because it's not publicized, doesn't mean it's not happening.


Too late... you've been plonked.

The only place I ever read the Daily Mail is (oddly) in my local takeaway curry place: it takes about as long for me to be properly horrified at each page of the Mail in turn, as it does for them to prepare that dangerously immigrant dish, the jalfrezi.

Is this actually the case? From reading The Register, it sometimes sounds like they've hardly solved a thing.

Payment in ID requirements, though, isn't a coin that buys us anything: all the 11th September people had valid ID, and all the 7th July people were British citizens. (I was going to add, "And the last time we had a sustained terror campaign in the UK we got by without monkeying with civil liberties", but then I remembered that whole Gerry-Adams-being-dubbed-by-actors thing.)

Does your curry house have the Mail too? actually all newspapers love to say violent crime is up, it's a great story. In fact violent crime has been falling for a decade.

Yes, exactly. If we really do need new laws for these new terrorists, which is not something I yet buy, then what I'd like to see is specific rules that they can only be used to combat terrorism: some kind of "fruit of the poison tree" arrangement whereby once a copper decides to use anti-terrorism legislation on somebody, they can't then use information gained that way to prosecute any other offence. (Well, except murder rape and GBH, I suppose.)

Peter

Is this the same rate for companies?
I think our sister division in the UK even has to pay a radio license if they play a radio on the shop floor.
...also, I was under the impression that the license was per receiving unit, but I guess I'm wrong.

BBC Radio licences for households were abolished some time ago, but if a radio is playing music on company premises, the Performing Rights Society are wont to claim that it's a public performance of the music, and attempt to stick their noses in the trough.

Peter

Yes I believe it is the same for companies.

However, you are mixing up two different issues. Your sisters company has to pay a licence cost if they play the radio on the shop floor because it is counted as a public performance. Therefore they have to pay for a licence to play the radio in public, this is separate from the TV licence and doesn't go to the BBC. I believe other countries have similar performance rights licensing schemes.

Thanks for the quick replies.
I didn't realize there was a difference between the radio and TV authorities.

"Public performance"- wow, that's quite a stretch. What if the company offered headphones? lol

Yes, there's a very similar arrangement in the US. It's not a governmental institution that collects the fees, though it is covered by civil copyright (or similar) law. I infer that it's not a government tax in the UK, either, but I'm not clear on that.

Edit: Here's an excellent overview of US music licensing.

That is correct.

No I was using it as an example of what a cock I thought you were being making your original comment. My point about seals is as misinformed and wrong as your opinion about the UK, that was my point!

As Godfrey says, I can't really say I notice any cameras. I have 4 up around my property and they have proved very useful to both myself and my neighbours. Mostly it is not useable as evidence as the Police always seem to find some kind of issue to why it can't be used, but I don't have it for any other reason than to see what went on myself. I never present anything to anyone until they ask for it, and I never check the system unless something has happened. I don't really see the big problem with CCTV to be honest.

No idea what you mean about ID requirements, can you explain how much worse off we are here in the UK than in Canada in that area ???

Cheers

Cris.

To be honest Cris, if you're expecting him to say 'I was wrong', you'll be waiting a very long time. Bruno is always right and if you don't agree with him, you're wrong. Plain and simple.....