Room 101

[Stuart83]

That is not true. If all you do is watch content from the stored libraries, of non-BBC streaming services, like Netflix, you still DO NOT require a licence. Only if you are watching or recording, a programme that is being transmitted as you watch, do you require a licence. That has NOT changed.

Another thing, the Licence fee pays for much more than just TV.

From, https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13

"The income from the TV Licence fee means all licence payers can enjoy an ever wider choice of BBC programmes, and services on TV, radio and online, including:

• Eight national TV channels plus regional TV services
• BBC iPlayer - 1000s of live and on demand programmes (including news, sport, dramas, comedy, documentaries, entertainment, and featured films), box sets and exclusive content
• BBC Sounds - a huge range of musical genres, radio stations and podcasts
• Radio stations - 10 pan-UK, six national and 40 local
• BBC website - including News, Sport, Weather, CBBC, Food, Bitesize, Arts, BBC Three
• BBC World Service - TV, radio and online
• BBC apps - like Bitesize, CBeebies, Food, News, Sport and Weather

The licence fee also ensures that all radio, TV and online services are free from commercial advertising and free at the point of use, on a wide range of platforms and devices."

Oh but it is ENTIRELY TRUE !
(Maybe a passion for the BBC? has caused you to misread before defending)
Please read again I said "PLANS"
Plans to introduce a licence fee to all streaming irrespective of plans etc including netflix and the rest.

These plans cover all plans live or not.

That's plans to introduce a licence fee to all streaming services irrespective of packages etc including netflix and the rest IRRESPECTIVE of what tier packages you pay for.

These plans cover all plans live or not, the entertainment minister has commented on such plans with the usual cryptic answers expected.

This COVERS streaming any packages live or not.
I mean anything as I explained in my prior comment.
I do not inline with the lion share of the wider younger community and according to the research and figures watch it listen to the BBC.
(This figure is spreading to wider community in general with TV licencing at an all time low)

Why should I pay towards it !?

I do not use the radio nor anything you listed.
I find streaming a much better alternative.

Maybe you should look into it yourself.

Quote/unquote (the net but please rest assured it's well covered elsewhere aswell)

"The UK government is considering extending the BBC licence fee to include people who only use streaming services. This is part of plans to modernize how the BBC is funded.
They are exploring new ways to expand the TV licence fee as it looks to secure the future of the BBC. This could include introducing a fee to non-live viewing for the first time, in a move that would affect those who stream on services like Disney+ and Netflix"

Please also see

What is the TV licence fee – and will UK viewers have to pay it to use Netflix?

New ideas under discussion could see viewers charged for using non-live streaming services

www.independent.co.uk

It's basically a licence fee extension to cover everything on TV.

Quoting the current rules when I said 'plans" doesn't help with future plans afoot to basically rob people.

I stand by my original post.
I'm patriotic enough to even want to support the BBC but only if they match the packages elsewhere.
After all I grew up with the BBC just as channel 5 hit our screens.
I am not however willing to pay for them if I'm not using their services nor should it be seen as anything but criminal to force a licence fee upon someone who doesn't want them either.

The overall underhanded nature of the BBC and licensing with the edition of this both of which is well documented on YouTube etc has long since put me off them.
Some of the best free streaming platforms are funded by short 60s adverts twice per show and to me exponentially improve upon the beeb me.
I do not mean the contentless crap inundated with adds and they even want to include these within the new licencing proposals.

So bang goes the theory a TV licence brings immunity to advertisment.

Rest assured if the powers that be are commenting on it all then it's in the pipeline.
Who knows what it will look like when implemented.

 

[Revolutions]

It seems that is one of a number of options being considered by ministers. I’ll wait & see what actually happens before making any judgement.

 

[Angle Poise-Lamp]

Oh but it is entirely true !
(Maybe a passion for the BBC? has caused you to misread before defending)
Please read again I said "PLANS"
Plans to introduce a licence fee to all streaming irrespective of plans etc including netflix and the rest.

These plans cover all plans live or not.

That's plans to introduce a licence fee to all streaming services irrespective of packages etc including netflix and the rest IRRESPECTIVE of what tier packages you pay for.

These plans cover all plans live or not, the entertainment minister has commented on such plans with the usual cryptic answers expected.

This COVERS streaming any packages live or not.
I mean anything as I explained in my prior comment.
I do not inline with the lion share of the wider younger community and according to the research and figures watch it listen to the BBC.
(This figure is spreading to wider community in general with TV licencing at an all time low)

Why should I pay towards it !?

I do not use the radio nor anything you listed.
I find streaming a much better alternative.

Maybe you should look into it yourself.

Quote/unquote (the net but please rest assured it's well covered elsewhere aswell)

"The UK government is considering extending the BBC licence fee to include people who only use streaming services. This is part of plans to modernize how the BBC is funded.
They are exploring new ways to expand the TV licence fee as it looks to secure the future of the BBC. This could include introducing a fee to non-live viewing for the first time, in a move that would affect those who stream on services like Disney+ and Netflix"

Please also see

What is the TV licence fee – and will UK viewers have to pay it to use Netflix?

New ideas under discussion could see viewers charged for using non-live streaming services

www.independent.co.uk

It's basically a licence fee extension to cover everything on TV.

Quoting the current rules when I said 'plans" doesn't help with future plans afoot to basically rob people.

I stand by my original post.
I'm patriotic enough to even want to support the BBC but only if they match the packages elsewhere.
After all I grew up with the BBC just as channel 5 hit our screens.
I am not however willing to pay for them if I'm not using their services nor should it be seen as anything but criminal to force a licence fee upon someone who doesn't want them either.

The overall underhanded nature of the BBC and licensing with the edition of this both of which is well documented on YouTube etc has long since put me off them.
Some of the best free streaming platforms are funded by short 60s adverts twice per show and to me exponentially improve upon the beeb me.
I do not mean the contentless crap inundated with adds and they even want to include these within the new licencing proposals.

So bang goes the theory a TV licence brings immunity to advertisment.

Rest assured if the powers that be are commenting on it all then it's in the pipeline.
Who knows what it will look like when implemented.

Ideas under discussion are not plans. A lot of ideas get discussed in government, many never see the light of day.

 

[Stuart83]

Ideas under discussion are not plans. A lot of ideas get discussed in government, many never see the light of day.

I'm not here to debate word definitions over "discussion or plans" but they are afoot and I'd like to put them in room 101

Depending on the source some say "Plans" some say "Discussing" they all trough into the same meaning do they not.
The daily mail call it neither instead opting to call it a "Plot"

(Maybe misjudging tone but I'm not here to fall out with anyone either, I certainly like your content and value your opinion🤝)

Things to do with money usually see the light of day when they are making by taking it from you do they not 😊

 

[Stuart83]

Ideas under discussion are not plans. A lot of ideas get discussed in government, many never see the light of day.

I hope extending BBC licencing to independent streamers doesn't see the light of day as I'm with the media critics.

Quote (daily mail) who call it neither a "plan nor discussion" but a "PLOT"

"One critic branded the suggestion of extending the licence to include streamers as 'one of the most bonkers ideas ever concocted"

 

[Angle Poise-Lamp]

I'm not here to debate word definitions over "discussion or plans" but they are afoot and I'd like to put them in room 101

Depending on the source some say "Plans" some say "Discussing" they all trough into the same meaning do they not.
The daily mail call it neither instead opting to call it a "Plot"

(Maybe misjudging tone but I'm not here to fall out with anyone either, I certainly like your content and value your opinion🤝)

Things to do with money usually see the light of day when they are making by taking it from you do they not 😊

You don't know what is going to happen and, neither do I, we just have to wait and see. As I see it, for the breadth of the services provided, the BBC offers better value than any stand-alone streaming service and, all with no ads. And there's another thing, if you buy products or services that are advertised on any channel or streaming service, you are helping to pay for them via the advertiser's ad budget, whether you watch their output or not. So even if you pay no licence fee, you can still be paying for TV services you never watch.

BTW, in my opinion, The Daily Mail is no more trustworthy than The Sunday Sport.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

I think that overall it's a big plus - I think the (many) problems stem from human nature, rather than the technology itself.

The more I've thought about this, the more the notion of a life without the internet horrifies me. No email, so everything would have to go back to being paper. No video calls, so all meetings having to go back to being 'real', meaning more travel and more time wasted. No shopping via the internet - I hate shopping at the best of times, so having to get everything from physical shops* (or the internet's simple-minded cousin, mail order), would be a massive step back. And the ease of access to information is invaluable, even if the flip side is a fair stream of disinformation.

I won't be so stupid as to say it's a no-brainer that this means we've got a good deal when you consider how it shines a light on the horribleness that seems to lurk in so many souls, but again I'd say that horribleness was already there.

*We do try to use local shops, because I'd miss not having them if they were not there - plus the local Co-op has started selling Hawkstone cider and lager...

 

[JDl]

I think that overall it's a big plus - I think the (many) problems stem from human nature, rather than the technology itself.

I agree that despite some damage that has undoubtedly been done to normal relationships between some people because of the internet, I am not an internet hater.
I think the internet has been of great benefit, certainly to me.
However to say that the problems stem from human nature is a somewhat sweeping statement and I absolutely don't agree.
I believe whatever problems do exist or arise stem from particular individuals whether they be many or not, but certainly not because of some inherent problem with human nature per se.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

I believe whatever problems do exist or arise stem from particular individuals whether they be many or not, but certainly not because of some inherent problem with human nature per se.

I agree - by 'human nature' I don't mean all of us, but alas there are always 'enough'!

 

[Stuart83]

You don't know what is going to happen and, neither do I, we just have to wait and see. As I see it, for the breadth of the services provided, the BBC offers better value than any stand-alone streaming service and, all with no ads. And there's another thing, if you buy products or services that are advertised on any channel or streaming service, you are helping to pay for them via the advertiser's ad budget, whether you watch their output or not. So even if you pay no licence fee, you can still be paying for TV services you never watch.

BTW, in my opinion, The Daily Mail is no more trustworthy than The Sunday Sport.

It's not an opinion that's shared with streaming opposed to the BBC at all by the statistical fact and figures hence more and more stream which is threatening to put an end to the BBC

THATS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER "THEY" ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE ALREADY DWINDLING FIGURES CAUSING A SUFFERING BUDGET TO COLLAPSE SO ARE LOOKING TO UNDERHANDEDLY INTRODUCE A LICENCE TO EVERYBODY WHO WATCHES TV.

(I personally find streaming an exponentially better value inline with the figures of people dropping TV licencing all together and disgusting the BBC would even "discuss" plan or plot what adds up to robbing people who don't want nor watch it to pay for it)

Like many I do not use the BBC as a whole thus find the very notion of being charged a BBC license fee to stream totally independent content theft like many others period.......

As for advertising I only refer to the add driven contents which only advertises what's coming on next or short 60 sec adds that a less invasive to me than the barage of advertising wherever i go.
Wether it be in Asda or a shopping centre.
I don't mind spending 60s NOT paying attention to a short add to enable a free streaming platform I favour over the BBC

What is prominent that you may of missed is the BBC advertises everywhere themselves even taking YouTube hostage with unwanted adds so are just as guilty as anyone else!.
They have also started discussing (but that word changes to planning, plotting etc 🥱) with other media outlets to add an advertisement driven scheme to certain streams to generate a licence fee.
Scheming is exactly what it is.

The idea, plans, plot etc etc or whatever you may call it is gathering steam with all media outlets both reputable and not who covering it.
There's simply no smoke without fire especially when it comes to monies going to them.
The fact the media of entertainment minister has commented on it however cryptic adds to many people's suspicions.

As said I'd like to add the whole thing to room 101 however it's labeled with it being a hot debate at the minute with the streaming community who share the same sentiments as me.

Being loyal to the BBC provokes a passionate response I totally understand but a feeble one at that to the streaming community who do not want to pay the for BBC watchers TV or radio or anything else they do not want.

You seem to linger on that I said it was fact it was changing or even already changed which is untrue.
I said quote "plans" to as that's exactly what some media outlets have labeled it as.
Not getting hung up on words plan is applicable enough for the media in which are indeed reputable.

I bow out and invite people to read the whole debate from the beginning to ensure it's understood what exactly I want in room 101 which is the very idea however labeled of the whole thing.
The whole thing is getting a bit petty to me from accusing me of writing falsehoods by you reading my original post wrong to word definitions that the media use which amount to the same thing regardless to defending a notion of what would be theft from independent streamers.

I see where comments can be twisted and loyalties can confuse right from wrong with things in general.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

I must admit that we're getting our VFM from iPlayer at present. Re-watched Chris Packham's Earth, ploughing through Top Gear, access to Inside No9 and Two Doors Down all in HD (all of TTD and much of No9 is only available on DVD).

 

[Stuart83]

I must admit that we're getting our VFM from iPlayer at present. Re-watched Chris Packham's Earth, ploughing through Top Gear, access to Inside No9 and Two Doors Down all in HD (all of TTD and much of No9 is only available on DVD).

I couldn't do another repeat of repeats especially"top gear" 😂
But that's the beauty of choice it's personal and shouldn't be forced.

 

[Angle Poise-Lamp]

It's not an opinion that's shared with streaming opposed to the BBC at all by the statistical fact and figures hence more and more stream which is threatening to put an end to the BBC

How much can you actually get for £14.54 per month, using subscription streaming services?

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

How much can you actually get for £14.54 per month, using subscription streaming services?

We have Netflix, but frankly get very little from it. Might knock that one on the head.

For me, the argument isn't broadcast vs streaming (as I use the Beeb far more as the latter), it's physical media vs streaming. Never seen anything streamed that is as good as a 4k disc, and do get occasional outages when streaming, so I'll stream some things but the stuff I love and which is available in a sufficiently high quality physical form will be bought that way.

 

[DCarmi]

I think there are likely to be significant changes to both linear and streaming services. Already, Sky and Channel 5 are US owned. ITV is suffering falls in revenue and the BBC undergoing cost-cutting for years. Plans to privatise C4 seem to be on hold for the moment but have been discussed and even planned for, for years.

Streaming services will have to undergo are are undergoing streamlining which are pushing up prices.

If they force the BBC into some form of privatisation, then they are in a fairly decent position in the market. They already have a commercial arm, a streaming platform and a single sign-on for most of their services, not to mention a large userbase. There will also likely be legal challenges because the BBC is owned by the public, rather than the state or crown.

I do have Netflix, Amazon and Disney, the latter free as a perk. I don't get a lot out of any of them. The adverts on Amazon and Disney are very annoying and I am unwilling to cough up more to get rid of them. Netflix I have and is ad-free and I've watched a fair amount recently because I binged a series (a BBC one!).

Amazon is a difficult one to get rid of because there are other services and other users of these services. Disney I don't pay for directly and if I had to choose between increased charges for BBC usage and Netflix, then the decision would be an easy one.

 

[Stuart83]

We have Netflix, but frankly get very little from it. Might knock that one on the head.

For me, the argument isn't broadcast vs streaming (as I use the Beeb far more as the latter), it's physical media vs streaming. Never seen anything streamed that is as good as a 4k disc, and do get occasional outages when streaming, so I'll stream some things but the stuff I love and which is available in a sufficiently high quality physical form will be bought that way.

It's very like me for music.
I'm not a fan of streaming music like Spotify etc but do catalogue things to purchase on disk, a very discussed topic in days gone by via here "streaming in all it's acronyms Vs physical media"

Not to open up a debate (on the for and against) in that area I personally find CD king for the key things that matter to me.

But for me streaming is king for me with TV.
I get on demand everything using IP TV which has broader appeal.
It's not locked to one platform which ppl seem to get confused with.
There's literally thousands of streams to include YouTube many thousands more and it's many many channels from diy to films to documentaries to anything you type add free for 11.99p m

I get 4k content as good as any and believe it or not haven't had a drop out, I have a fast mobile hotspot if ever I did.

My streaming package in which I include the free stuff like freevee, tubi and a so many others has a wider appeal in my demographic as the figures echo.
(I'm not however from the internet generation growing up in the early 90s well before the Facebook fraternity which I've seen only a detrimental effect by)
I need not prove which is better to the lion share of the public, the decline in BBC licensing from ppl switching over to streaming services does it for me.

2023-2024, around 500,000 households in the UK stopped paying the BBC licence fee, while nearly 20 million households subscribed to streaming services that's just fact.
That figure is still gathering speed
A deep dive into the numbers shows it worse than that.

Like many my access to the main three is free pardon the pun in with my mobile phone contract so just for intensive purposes using the cheapest all you can eat mobile plan and halfing it then that's 15 £ for the big three pm.
(I think my missus might pay for Disney 😕)

That aside the free stuff like YouTube which proves invaluable to me for DIY etc etc.

It's all a personal opinion on what's better but the figures are fact.
What I would like to again add though is as a patriotic type of an ever slipping country id happily back the BBC given reason.

 

[jjbomber]

I think there are likely to be significant changes to both linear and streaming services. Already, Sky and Channel 5 are US owned.

The original BBC was part American owned.

 

[Dave_]

The original BBC was part American owned.

Absolute 🐂💩

 

[Angle Poise-Lamp]

The original BBC was part American owned.

Absolute 🐂💩

The history of the BBC

The BBC is a public service broadcaster. Find out when the BBC started, how it’s funded and where its London headquarters are.

www.londonmuseum.org.uk

From the link:

“The General Post Office (the government department in charge of communications) successfully trialled two radio stations in 1922, which led to the founding of the British Broadcasting Company.

The BBC’s first radio broadcast went out on 14 November 1922 from the 2LO studio in London. 2LO belonged to Guglielmo Marconi, who pioneered the technology behind wireless radio.

By 1925 the BBC was broadcasting across most of the United Kingdom from their central-London base in Savoy Hill.

In 1927 John Reith, the general manager of the BBC, was knighted and the company became the British Broadcasting Corporation.”

 

[JDl]

I agree - by 'human nature' I don't mean all of us, but alas there are always 'enough'!

Indeed, there are always plenty enough!

 

[DCarmi]

The original BBC was part American owned

I think you are confusing the first broadcast tests in 1920 by Marconi prior to the formation of the BBC.

Even then, Marconi was a UK company until it was bought by GEC 50 years later.

 

[jjbomber]

I think you are confusing the first broadcast tests in 1920 by Marconi prior to the formation of the BBC.

Even then, Marconi was a UK company until it was bought by GEC 50 years later.

GEC were one of the early part owners.

 

[Stuart83]

I think you are confusing the first broadcast tests in 1920 by Marconi prior to the formation of the BBC.

Even then, Marconi was a UK company until it was bought by GEC 50 years later.

How interesting 🤔 👍
And correct of course, Marconi although Italian was one of the fathers of the BBC and the American Marconi company was a "subsidiary" of the British Marconi company at home here.
Apparently it was bought out although in 1919 by gec as you indeed say over a distrust following the war.

(Suppose the original poster stating it was partly American owned could of been because of another blunder by the Google g ods newest being Google ai which states)

"The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) was formed in 1922 by a group of British and American electrical companies" 🐴 💩

I do know the American AMC network has bought out the "BBC America" network entirely now but that's over there obviously not here

The BBC is quintessentially English

 

[DougK1]

GEC were one of the early part owners.

GEC were a British company, not American, think you might be confusing GEC with GE. I worked for one of GEC's portfolio companies in the 70's and they were definitely a wholly owned British company. Can't always trust Google searches.

 

[froze]

What are your pet hates?

My pet is a lover, he loves me like crazy, as soon as he saw me when he came out behind the door at the pound he suddenly perked up and ran to me and plastered himself to my side, where he has remained 5 years later! I never knew a dog like this one. Even my wife was shocked that this dog did that at the pound, she and I both knew within that second he saw me, he was coming home with us. That dog when he saw me at the pound suddenly ran toward me so hard the handler was caught off guard and the rope slipped through his hands, but the dog ran up to me and wouldn't leave my side or take his eyes off of me. Even the pound guy said he had never in 30 years of working there seen a dog act like that toward a person, he said it was like the dog had known me for years. He has been absolutely by far the best dog we've had in 45 years of being married and having dogs.

I know, not exactly the story you were looking for, but at least it wasn't all the hate and negativity that question has generated here.