|
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
When I lived in Canada, trips back to the UK were enjoyed by being able to watch the BBC, mainly because of the quality. These days, with living in the Netherlands on cable I have BBC1,2 and 4 plus BBC Entertainment and BBC First (a channel for Holland with Dutch subtitles). Although there are a number of good historical programmes on BBC 2 & BBC 4 the quality of comedy is sadly missing.
|
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
If being able to pay a small fee for commercial free television that's regularly excellent (some complete dross as well, but world class dramas, wildlife documentaries etc) is what you consider to be backwards, then I'm very happy to be backwards. Seem a step forwards to me personally, I wish I could pay it for all tv channels to be commercial free.
|
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Ah....... the BBC those nice people who brought us Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.
|
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by scot47
(Post 12196703)
Ah....... the BBC those nice people who brought us Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.
Scrap the TV licence along with the £5 billion yearly budget wasted space that is the BBC There are enough broadcaster alternatives, so what would the British people do should the BBC suddenly go off the air? Maybe, just maybe 'for Queen & country' a single propaganda BBC news TV channel (BBC news) with commercials would do it (copycat 24 hour CNN, CBC news). :nod: Add to that a single one frequency radio station that simulcasts the sound of the BBC TV news channel Simple enough |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by not2old
(Post 12196706)
There are enough broadcaster alternatives, so what would the British people do should the BBC suddenly go off the air?
Even ITV produces BBC standard shows now. Think stuff like Morse and Unforgotten would ever have come about otherwise? |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by christmasoompa
(Post 12196692)
If being able to pay a small fee for commercial free television that's regularly excellent (some complete dross as well, but world class dramas, wildlife documentaries etc) is what you consider to be backwards, then I'm very happy to be backwards. Seem a step forwards to me personally, I wish I could pay it for all tv channels to be commercial free.
The US PBS system (quality programming) http://www.pbs.org/program/program-a-z/ is something that could be alternative to the BBC (licence fee) model £5 billion yearly budget, to that of the PBS model is way less costly to the taxpayer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/budget . |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by not2old
(Post 12196830)
The US PBS system (quality programming) Programs A to Z | PBS Programs | PBS
is something that could be alternative to the BBC. |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 12196844)
Isn't most of the stuff on PBS that people like made by the Beeb?
My guess is that many of the 'shows' on BBC that are sold/licensed or rebroadcast elsewhere come from independent film or documentary makers, budgeted UK studio's, ITV, Bollywood, Hollywood, Canadian Hollywood, OZ, NZ, Asia....wherever |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by not2old
(Post 12196849)
what portion or percentage of the 'British' content that PBS broadcasts or that are British programs do you think is actually funded by the BBC, knowing that whatever is made that is shown on BBC TV is not directly from the (licence fee) budget, is simply that funded from other source, produced by the likes of ITV & others that is broadcast by BBC?
My guess is that many of the 'shows' on BBC that are sold/licensed or rebroadcast elsewhere come from independent film or documentary makers, budgeted UK studio's, ITV, Bollywood, Hollywood, Canadian Hollywood, OZ, NZ, Asia....wherever Once upon a time a TV broadcaster produced it's own stuff and there were differences in quality and style. These days TV broadcasters produce and commission the stuff to broadcast and there are still differences in quality and style. The means of production have changed a bit but the results are still similar. |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 12196922)
Not really sure I understand that question.
Once upon a time a TV broadcaster produced it's own stuff and there were differences in quality and style. These days TV broadcasters produce and commission the stuff to broadcast and there are still differences in quality and style. The means of production have changed a bit but the results are still similar. Then there is the BBC Orchestra which is totally owned & operated & paid for by the BBC There is a business operating unit of the BBC that has commercials If it wasn't the BBC, others would produce, make & sell the same quality content as what the BBC has its name on + adding commercial content to pay for it BBC should be canned as should the ~35,000 people that work for it, or make the BBC a slimmed down version of one TV news channel + one radio station. PBS is way way better than anything BBC IMO |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by not2old
(Post 12196928)
from what I've read the BBC produces little if anything itself - it does commission stuff, or gets video/movies/documentaries from a third party & labels it, then sells it under licence...
Gary Lineker used to be paid by the BBC to present BBC's Match of the Day. Now he is independent of the BBC when he is paid to present BBC's Match of the Day. Different means, same result. ITV used to produce their own football highlights show. Never came close to the BBC standard. When ITV and BBC cover the same event which 'wins' the viewing figures battle? Which of ITV and BBC routinely wins the battle for viewers at Christmas? It ain't ITV. If it wasn't the BBC, others would produce, make & sell the same quality content as what the BBC has its name on The differences are closer (for ITV and occasionally C4) than they used to be but they are still there. What did C5 produce or commission that became a favourite? |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
CBC isn't 'free'.
We pay $1.2 billion per year through general taxation even with advertising. So about $100 per year per household with a tv. |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 12196950)
That would be the part that has changed that I mentioned. Here's an example.
Gary Lineker used to be paid by the BBC to present BBC's Match of the Day. Now he is independent of the BBC when he is paid to present BBC's Match of the Day. Different means, same result. ITV used to produce their own football highlights show. Never came close to the BBC standard. When ITV and BBC cover the same event which 'wins' the viewing figures battle? Which of ITV and BBC routinely wins the battle for viewers at Christmas? It ain't ITV. But they wouldn't. Whether you use the word quality or style or whatever, there's a certain 'market' for BBC and others for ITV, C4 C5 etc. The differences are closer (for ITV and occasionally C4) than they used to be but they are still there. What did C5 produce or commission that became a favourite? |
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian
(Post 12195906)
Whos backward now ;)
|
Re: TV licences are Brits behind the times?
Originally Posted by Teaandtoday5
(Post 12197222)
Didn't ITV do Downton?
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 7:59 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.