British T.V Licenses.

[Bigbazz]

The BBC is awesome, no adverts and top quality productions. That said I don't actually watch TV, but I do watch stuff on the BBC iplayer, which is also awesome!

To put an example. I once watched a stream of an american station broadcasting the NASCAR Charlotte (i think) 500 race. The ammount of product placement and advert breaks was enough to drive a person insane, I just want to watch the fucking race not hear from billy bob joe about his kentucky fried chicken, addidas, nike, Mcdonalds, Coca Cola Ford Camry, or sit there watching the myriad of commercials during the break.

Meanwhile on the BBC the F1 broadcast of the 2011 Canadian GP, it was delayed due to dangerous conditions in the rain, for around 4 hours but they kept on with the coverage while they waited for the restart.

So including the 2 (1h30m) practice sessions, the 2 hour qualifying show and the 6 hours +/- of the race due to the delays, it had no product placement, no advertising and no bullshit, just pure quality production for the sake of the production and coverage of the race.


The BBC is all about the quality of the content.

[Doktor Faustus]

All mainstream news these days it biased and tells a story to it's viewers (ie, it has a line).

For instance, the BBC push that the Free Syrian Army are angels sent from heaven to overthrow Assad.

The reality is, both sides are murdering civillians.

You need multiple sources (especially these days but you always have) and need to form your opinion on what you see/hear/read.

I enjoy the BBC, but some of the shit they put out is crap - like any other channel.

However, compared to ITV it is heads and shoulders a better allround service.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't be so quick to claim the BBC is completely unbiased.

I'm pretty sure the Director General is appointed by the PM, not to mention Newsnight isn't exactly famed for it's unbiased nature; Paxman is rarely held to account for his frequently expressed views on topics, even though I'm sure they're widely agreed with.

But if the only political engagement people have with politics is T.V and viral videos of blunders, there's definitely a problem on both sides of the Atlantic.

[someotherguy]

I would pay for it, but I'm not sure if government paying for it makes it unbiased.
I'm pretty sure there have been multiple occasions when BBC was biased, it's in the eye of the beholder.
We do have government sponsored network PBS, but I believe they can't do news (or maybe just don't do news).

US has a lot of channels with news, though may not be devoted to news, but is there really a need for 24/7 news channel? They normally just replay same thing over and over. It's comfortable to catch up on something you missed, but you can do same on internet.

[Lagwin]

Just owning a TV/PC/Phone that is capable of receiving live TV = TV license required.

I watch all my stuff online or via my ISP's TV, not live yet still have to have a TV license. If there was an option to not receive ANY BBC stuff so i wouldn't have to pay a TV license, i'd be on it like stink on good cheese.

The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.

The bold part being relevant to you.
That's from their page here http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check/v...&WT.mc_id=r001

As long as you don't use your devices to receive or watch as it's being broadcast they even state that catchup services are exempt as long as it not being broadcast on the TV at the time.

[Hyve]

I'm British, and I support the TV licence in theory. The BBC website is fantastic, and no matter what anybody tries to claim, the BBC is simply the best, most unbiased major news company in the world.

However.

There is far too much shit. Cash in the Attic, Bargain Hunt and so on. That kind of drivel should be left to TV channels funded by advertising. Unfortunately that means the few decent shows (Top Gear) should also go. I'd strip the BBC to the News 24 channel, one radio station and the website. Put programmes like Question Time, Panorama and Newsnight on the new 24 hour service, and drastically reduce the cost to us all. £150 a year is simply too much for what it is.

I was about to type pretty much this. British myself, and I feel the same way.

[apepi]

Eh, I watched BBC during the Olympics(US here) and it was quite a change. No advertisements but sometimes they did just go to a bcc screen when they had nothing to show. While BBC is not as biased as most other stations they are still biased, though they are better then most, they seem to give you lots of facts.

Though one of the things that caught me off guard was that for one of their morning shows they had a sign translator signing everything.

[Deleted]

This is a question towards Americans, would you guy pay for a fair balanced news channel such as the BBC?
I know their are some reputable news channels in America but some are just awfully biased.

I like the fact that the BBC is payed for the people and held directly accountable by the people, we are in charge.
I watched the election in America and I just thought that so many people where twisted into voting for certain candidates depending on the news stations ideals and only reporting on news that shows their candidate in a good light.
Here is the UK we pretty much hate all are politicians and they are always under the spot light.
So would you be willing to pay for a T.V License to get a high standard news organization such as the BBC?
Also we get Top Gear.

The BBC is just another corporate leech, sure ill admit we have had some great television from it in the past, but the BBC doesn't have a monopoly on great TV and the definition of great TV can change.

People can think what they like and be twisted by almost anything,television just happens to be good at it, and convenient.But the truth of some matters is people cant see the woods for the trees. Whinge whinge cry cry about politics etc, but the fact of the matter is its a very archaic system, what once was viable is no longer viable, the old dial up system for the internet is archaic, but it exists and existed so something better could exist. "democracy" and "television " and the "BBC" are just the same.

That's my 2 pennies anyway.

[Raldazzar]

I live in the Uk and I dont have a license. the myth of the detector vans scares people into submitting.

I do not use bbc iplayer I dont watch bbc news, and I dont watch any bbc programming, I pay a staggering amount of money to Virgin for my TV. I do not intend to pay more to the BBC when they contribute nothing to my life.

the only time anyone has even been to our house was 2 weeksa fter we moved in (as the old owner registers at a new addy, they think aha! new person here! ) and send osmebody around, I said I dont have a use for a tv license. he said ok, and went away. you are not legally obliged to talk to, or let them in. just dont give them your name, or any info!

its a con. the only way they can prove you are watching tv live anyway is if you let them in. simply do not let them in.

[RüneRS]

Here is the UK we pretty much hate all are politicians and they are always under the spot light.

It has just fallen to me that this might be the only way for democracy to work