I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
If people want radio then let them pay for it.
Why should TV viewers be taxed to pay for radio? What an absurd notion.
I couldn't give a toss about radio.
That is my point. It is BBC radio. Do you think it isn't funded by the LF?
If you want to have a radio subscription then pay for it. Good for you
Gah! That is my entire point.
You should be able to buy the BBC radio on a subscription model.
How popular? No idea but there will be millions of takers at a price.
Same with other modules.
Yup, agree with that. I've got no issue with the BBC going for a variable subscription model. As I have pointed out it means that they lose a huge chunk of licence fee income that will take years to build back up with subscriber numbers and if, as I expect, "BBC Entertainment" is the most popular subscription do they need to hypothecate the revenue to entertainment spending or can it go towards propping up loss making radio and news?
Otherwise over time the quality of entertainment output goes down as it is starved of money and it loses subscribers to save what is already a dying form of media, radio and news TV.
The answer is to privatise it and let it figure out what the best model is in the private sector without any kind of "public service" remit. If the government wants to fund BBC news then let it do it out of general taxation and take away all editorial output so it's just a guy reading out headlines.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
I don't think I've listened to the radio or radio talking heads for a few years. Too often the "experts" are a bunch of political hacks with an agenda to push. Not always, of course. At least with the newspapers I know going in what the agenda is and it isn't cloaked under impartiality rules that no one pays attention to.
Fair enough. I'm just saying that imo BBC radio has a value.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
If people want radio then let them pay for it.
Why should TV viewers be taxed to pay for radio? What an absurd notion.
I couldn't give a toss about radio.
That is my point. It is BBC radio. Do you think it isn't funded by the LF?
If you want to have a radio subscription then pay for it. Good for you
Gah! That is my entire point.
You should be able to buy the BBC radio on a subscription model.
How popular? No idea but there will be millions of takers at a price.
Same with other modules.
Until 1971 there was a radio only licence available at £1.25; since then it has been free.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
As far as TV goes, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its aspirations.
Asking a witness to accept the constraints of speaking only to evidence selected by you on the undisclosed advice and direction of unidentified others is not acceptable in any forum and is, in our client’s view, particularly offensive when the remit he seeks to address has been set for you by Parliament and addresses the unlawful actions of an elected Government and the needless squandering of hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money.
The extraordinary thing about the BBC is how little money it makes from its commercial activities. This should be massively ramped up so eventually it is paying us.
If they were sensible, they’d use non-exclusive licensing for their own content abroad, and sell iPlayer subscriptions to anyone in the world who wants one. Plenty of Brits overseas find ‘other’ ways to watch UK TV because the legal ways simply don’t exist.
The extraordinary thing about the BBC is how little money it makes from its commercial activities. This should be massively ramped up so eventually it is paying us.
If they were sensible, they’d use non-exclusive licensing for their own content abroad, and sell iPlayer subscriptions to anyone in the world who wants one. Plenty of Brits overseas find ‘other’ ways to watch UK TV because the legal ways simply don’t exist.
That is what brit box is surely...the uptake abroad has been less than astounding
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's current televisual ethos ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor in its regular output.
To this day the World Service will occasionally lead the news on something like the Paraguayan election results, so as to remind us of the days when BBC radio generally ran an actual fairly objective world news service without obsessing on single issues, the domestic agenda only and trivia.
(They still keep a large fleet of reporters all over the world, nearly all of them almost never appearing on domestic media, but the WS keeps reminding you they exist).
As when the Times was a newspaper of record and if the Sudanese government had a major reshuffle they would print a list of the entire Sudanese cabinet.
The continual drop off in cases in South Africa is remarkable, given that Social Distancing is very challenging there and they have vaccinated very few.
It does seem these new variants spread very quickly and then die out equally as quickly.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
If people want radio then let them pay for it.
Why should TV viewers be taxed to pay for radio? What an absurd notion.
I couldn't give a toss about radio.
That is my point. It is BBC radio. Do you think it isn't funded by the LF?
If you want to have a radio subscription then pay for it. Good for you
Gah! That is my entire point.
You should be able to buy the BBC radio on a subscription model.
How popular? No idea but there will be millions of takers at a price.
Same with other modules.
Doesn't get off the ground unless you introduce a new generation of Radio Detector Vans to enforce it. And that would only work if you keep the model that if you don't have a BBC licence you can't listen to anyone else.
The extraordinary thing about the BBC is how little money it makes from its commercial activities. This should be massively ramped up so eventually it is paying us.
If they were sensible, they’d use non-exclusive licensing for their own content abroad, and sell iPlayer subscriptions to anyone in the world who wants one. Plenty of Brits overseas find ‘other’ ways to watch UK TV because the legal ways simply don’t exist.
That is what brit box is surely...the uptake abroad has been less than astounding
It’s only available in USA, Canada and Australia at the moment.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
If people want radio then let them pay for it.
Why should TV viewers be taxed to pay for radio? What an absurd notion.
I couldn't give a toss about radio.
That is my point. It is BBC radio. Do you think it isn't funded by the LF?
If you want to have a radio subscription then pay for it. Good for you
Gah! That is my entire point.
You should be able to buy the BBC radio on a subscription model.
How popular? No idea but there will be millions of takers at a price.
Same with other modules.
Well if millions want to subscribe then good for you. Go ahead with it, job done. ✅
Currently tens of millions are compelled by law to subscribe whether they listen to the radio or not.
So expect a switchover from tens of millions subscribing to millions doing so to lead to a bit of rightsizing adjustment but there's nothing wrong with that.
The extraordinary thing about the BBC is how little money it makes from its commercial activities. This should be massively ramped up so eventually it is paying us.
If they were sensible, they’d use non-exclusive licensing for their own content abroad, and sell iPlayer subscriptions to anyone in the world who wants one. Plenty of Brits overseas find ‘other’ ways to watch UK TV because the legal ways simply don’t exist.
I think to be fair, that's what Britbox is about. But broadly speaking I agree.
"Deaths strongly falling in Sweden" "OH sure, last week's deaths have been revised up by 100% but this week, this week cases are falling" "Oh sure, the last 2 weeks of cases have now been revised up to the extent that there is a new peak and sure testing levels are down by a third and positivity is still running at 10% but THIS WEEK. THIS WEEK DEATHS ARE FALLING"
I hadn’t realised Paton is now plugging directly into the Spiked truther network. Has that been going on for a while?
He'd started being approvingly cited by them a while ago thanks to his "Lockdowns don't have any effect, October/November was a pure coincidence" thought line. Actually publishing on Spiked is new I think but he's been clearly heading in that direction for a while.
No he started off by correctly highlighting a deficiency in the way the government (and the media) were reporting the daily numbers, and why he was quoted here....then it went downhill into nothing to see, lockdowns are bad, etc, and I don't think any regular poster then went near his tweets.
It's truly amazing the way the Government can reliably and consistently guess when cases are going to "naturally" decline and declare a lockdown to take effect shortly before that.
I mean, they've done it three times on the trot now, and never missed any decline outside of those. Other countries have pulled it off in multiple cases as well.
It's almost as though those two events are somehow linked.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Horizon is consistent - and consistently the best thing the BBC does.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
I tend to agree. We still watch plenty of BBC stuff, much more than from the other broadcast channels (although it is all, apart from live news, via iplayer and the like, not live) but probably less than Netflix. However, most of that is private production companies who would likely sell to other players like Netflix if the BBC wasn't buying.
So, I see the value in news and current affairs and also in the more niche sports, perhaps. I also wonder whether we'd have some of the amazing wildlife documentaries without the BBC. Sure, Netflix do them now and do them well, but would we have ever got to the level we have got to without the public service remit of the BBC? I honestly do not have an answer, but sometimes things are produced because it's a 'good' thing to do and only afterwards is it obvious there is a market for it. We might lose out on those kinds of things without a BBC. Radio too, of course. So I think there's a place for the BBC, but much slimmed down. The question is, can we as a country agree which bits stay in a slimmed down BBC? Why should my desire for the public broadcaster to fun wildlife documentaries trump someone else's desire for them to fund EastEnders?
BBC kids TV is also better than the other broadcasters'. Probably could survive well as a subscription service, but why should kids of rich parents get better (more educational, more nuanced) TV than kids of poor parents? There's also a public service remit there too.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Horizon is consistent - and consistently the best thing the BBC does.
Even modern Horizon has slipped somewhat - go back and look at 'Killer in the Village' or 'Now the Chips are Down' and the modern shows are much more noisy and far too kinetic.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Horizon is consistent - and consistently the best thing the BBC does.
Even modern Horizon has slipped somewhat - go back and look at 'Killer in the Village' or 'Now the Chips are Down' and the modern shows are far to noisy and far too kinetic.
My father was a friend of the 1980s editor of Horizon, a very cultured Jewish Londoner. He left the BBC in the 1990s, and is still alive making films for small audiences he says the BBC would never show now.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
You don't need a TV License to listen to BBC radio or to use the BBC website.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Horizon is consistent - and consistently the best thing the BBC does.
Horizon is a good programme but its been seriously dumbed down since the 1990s IMO.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Out of curiosity I just said "David Attenborough" into my Sky Q remote to search what was available by him.
Copious amounts unsurprisingly. A few on BBC One like Planet Earth II and a fair few on Sky Nature too.
Other probably older ones on other channels like Gold, W and Eden. Overall a 50/50 split between the Beeb and Commercial TV.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
I tend to agree. We still watch plenty of BBC stuff, much more than from the other broadcast channels (although it is all, apart from live news, via iplayer and the like, not live) but probably less than Netflix. However, most of that is private production companies who would likely sell to other players like Netflix if the BBC wasn't buying.
So, I see the value in news and current affairs and also in the more niche sports, perhaps. I also wonder whether we'd have some of the amazing wildlife documentaries without the BBC. Sure, Netflix do them now and do them well, but would we have ever got to the level we have got to without the public service remit of the BBC? I honestly do not have an answer, but sometimes things are produced because it's a 'good' thing to do and only afterwards is it obvious there is a market for it. We might lose out on those kinds of things without a BBC. Radio too, of course. So I think there's a place for the BBC, but much slimmed down. The question is, can we as a country agree which bits stay in a slimmed down BBC? Why should my desire for the public broadcaster to fun wildlife documentaries trump someone else's desire for them to fund EastEnders?
BBC kids TV is also better than the other broadcasters'. Probably could survive well as a subscription service, but why should kids of rich parents get better (more educational, more nuanced) TV than kids of poor parents? There's also a public service remit there too.
But the parents of the poor kids already pay because they pay the licence fee, a lesser subscription cost for "BBC Kids" would save them money if they didn't care about radio/news/sport/entertainment.
I'm very much in favour of TOPPING's variable subscription model and maybe a new top price of £20 per month for all services and dedicated channels on the EPG for each service the same as Sky.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
You don't need a TV License to listen to BBC radio or to use the BBC website.
I'd say it should be the other way around. Stick it all behind a paywall but make it optional to subscribe.
The extraordinary thing about the BBC is how little money it makes from its commercial activities. This should be massively ramped up so eventually it is paying us.
If they were sensible, they’d use non-exclusive licensing for their own content abroad, and sell iPlayer subscriptions to anyone in the world who wants one. Plenty of Brits overseas find ‘other’ ways to watch UK TV because the legal ways simply don’t exist.
In the US, they already do that effectively with Britbox, which is a JV with ITV and which has carved out a nice niche - approaching 2m subs. Also been launched in places like Australia.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
I tend to agree. We still watch plenty of BBC stuff, much more than from the other broadcast channels (although it is all, apart from live news, via iplayer and the like, not live) but probably less than Netflix. However, most of that is private production companies who would likely sell to other players like Netflix if the BBC wasn't buying.
So, I see the value in news and current affairs and also in the more niche sports, perhaps. I also wonder whether we'd have some of the amazing wildlife documentaries without the BBC. Sure, Netflix do them now and do them well, but would we have ever got to the level we have got to without the public service remit of the BBC? I honestly do not have an answer, but sometimes things are produced because it's a 'good' thing to do and only afterwards is it obvious there is a market for it. We might lose out on those kinds of things without a BBC. Radio too, of course. So I think there's a place for the BBC, but much slimmed down. The question is, can we as a country agree which bits stay in a slimmed down BBC? Why should my desire for the public broadcaster to fun wildlife documentaries trump someone else's desire for them to fund EastEnders?
BBC kids TV is also better than the other broadcasters'. Probably could survive well as a subscription service, but why should kids of rich parents get better (more educational, more nuanced) TV than kids of poor parents? There's also a public service remit there too.
90% of BBC content would likely be produced commercially if the Beeb didn't make or commission it. Their very presence distorts the market, especially in new areas such on online written content, where they drive out competition.
You could probably have a much slimmed-down Beeb producing genuine public service broadcasting funded from general taxation, or have a Quango distribute funds like lottery grants to private broadcasters, for those few areas the market wouldn't produce - mostly the high-brow BB2/BBC4 stuff and children's programs without adverts.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Spot on. UK programme makers need to grow a pair and invest beyond the 6 episode format when they have a hit.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
I tend to agree. We still watch plenty of BBC stuff, much more than from the other broadcast channels (although it is all, apart from live news, via iplayer and the like, not live) but probably less than Netflix. However, most of that is private production companies who would likely sell to other players like Netflix if the BBC wasn't buying.
So, I see the value in news and current affairs and also in the more niche sports, perhaps. I also wonder whether we'd have some of the amazing wildlife documentaries without the BBC. Sure, Netflix do them now and do them well, but would we have ever got to the level we have got to without the public service remit of the BBC? I honestly do not have an answer, but sometimes things are produced because it's a 'good' thing to do and only afterwards is it obvious there is a market for it. We might lose out on those kinds of things without a BBC. Radio too, of course. So I think there's a place for the BBC, but much slimmed down. The question is, can we as a country agree which bits stay in a slimmed down BBC? Why should my desire for the public broadcaster to fun wildlife documentaries trump someone else's desire for them to fund EastEnders?
BBC kids TV is also better than the other broadcasters'. Probably could survive well as a subscription service, but why should kids of rich parents get better (more educational, more nuanced) TV than kids of poor parents? There's also a public service remit there too.
Cant answer for kids tv as I don't watch it but can say there are plenty of very good documentaries on prime and they tend to be series on a subject rather than a single program. A nature example for instance
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
The archive is a genuine national treasure. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
As a result of the pandemic geologists, oceanographers, ecologists and other field scientists have had to postpone research field trips. This has delayed the publication of research work into climate change and ecosystems, which would have informed policy decisions.
“You can’t Skype meetings with corals,” said Emily Darling, a scientist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, who coordinates monitoring for increasingly threatened coral reefs all over the globe. “Being underwater, and being with the communities that rely on reefs, is the only way we have information about the health of a reef. That information is not available remotely.”
Climate changes, and deforestation that could lead to the next pandemic, are still continuing but we will know less about these variables due to the restrictions affecting field sciences.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes.
Completely agree, 10 shows per season, annually released has been the winning model for about 10 years now. Getting the talent on 4-5 season deals with ratings based annual renewal options is another innovation that the BBC hasn't taken on.
It means that the likes of Sherlock wouldn't have had gigantic gaps in between seasons, it would have had at 10 episodes per season and Martin Freeaman and Benedict Cumberbatch would have been signed up for 40-50 episodes before they could decide they'd had enough. Not only does that mean a better experience for viewers, it also means the BBC gets serious licence revenue from Netflix and other streaming services for their content.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
The archive is a genuine national treasure. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
You'd rather it be kept in a vault somewhere, never to be used, never to be seen? 🤔
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
That depends on whether we just keep it locked up gathering dust, or actually put it up somewhere we can watch it.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
That depends on whether we just keep it locked up gathering dust, or actually put it up somewhere we can watch it.
The entire thing should be on iPlayer, Netflix style.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes.
Completely agree, 10 shows per season, annually released has been the winning model for about 10 years now. Getting the talent on 4-5 season deals with ratings based annual renewal options is another innovation that the BBC hasn't taken on.
It means that the likes of Sherlock wouldn't have had gigantic gaps in between seasons, it would have had at 10 episodes per season and Martin Freeaman and Benedict Cumberbatch would have been signed up for 40-50 episodes before they could decide they'd had enough. Not only does that mean a better experience for viewers, it also means the BBC gets serious licence revenue from Netflix and other streaming services for their content.
The argument why they don't get the likes of Freeman and Cumberbatch to sign for 50 episodes is because they work for the BBC around their other work at a reduced rate as some sort of favour.
Again, what is the BBC is for, is it to be a charity case where actors help them out, so the poor British public can have a bit of good content from time to time? Or is it going to be a proper content production outfit?
And why not sign up new talent that would be happy for such an opportunity? That how we got the likes of Idris Elba via HBO's The Wire.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Spot on. UK programme makers need to grow a pair and invest beyond the 6 episode format when they have a hit.
Yet - if I look at Disney plus everything is a 6 to 8 part series because that is what the story needs.
In a world of on demand media it really doesn't matter how many episodes are produced - the need for 20-25 episodes to strap it in a time slot for the entire year doesn't exist anymore.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
You don't need a TV License to listen to BBC radio or to use the BBC website.
That is my point. They are paid for, however, by the LF. So you are free riding on @Philip_Thompson.
Under a subscription model, however, you would be able to purchase access to BBC Radio and the apps without having Philip pay for you.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
If people want radio then let them pay for it.
Why should TV viewers be taxed to pay for radio? What an absurd notion.
I couldn't give a toss about radio.
That is my point. It is BBC radio. Do you think it isn't funded by the LF?
If you want to have a radio subscription then pay for it. Good for you
Gah! That is my entire point.
You should be able to buy the BBC radio on a subscription model.
How popular? No idea but there will be millions of takers at a price.
Same with other modules.
Doesn't get off the ground unless you introduce a new generation of Radio Detector Vans to enforce it. And that would only work if you keep the model that if you don't have a BBC licence you can't listen to anyone else.
Weren't detector vans an entirely empty threat in any case? Maybe the technology has moved on but I doubt it.
Perhaps now we've been softened up with Covid grassing up, a STASI style mass self-surveillance could be encouraged.
'Dear neighborhood watchman, I heard that divvie bloke blasting out My Own Correspondent at 11am yesterday. Don't know if he's got a licence, but he looks like the type not to.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
The archive is a genuine national treasure. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Ok, but that just means no one gets to watch it. Wouldn't you rather people get to watch it even if they need to pay £5.99 per month to have access.
Honestly, if the BBC had a "BBC Archive" subscription I'd actually pay for it for the science, nature and other documentaries. As it is there's only terrible VHS quality rips on YouTube that they don't get paid for.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
Bollox. Peaky is MILES better than Boardwalk. Your taste buds are off. See a doctor.
The BBC make too many wrong decisions. For example, they had two crime shows, Waking The Dead and Silent Witness. Almost everyone agreed that Waking The Dead was the better show, so they cancelled it in favour of continuing to produce Silent Witness.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
How much would it cost you to watch all 58 episodes of Boardwalk Empire?
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
If people want radio then let them pay for it.
Why should TV viewers be taxed to pay for radio? What an absurd notion.
I couldn't give a toss about radio.
That is my point. It is BBC radio. Do you think it isn't funded by the LF?
If you want to have a radio subscription then pay for it. Good for you
Gah! That is my entire point.
You should be able to buy the BBC radio on a subscription model.
How popular? No idea but there will be millions of takers at a price.
Same with other modules.
Doesn't get off the ground unless you introduce a new generation of Radio Detector Vans to enforce it. And that would only work if you keep the model that if you don't have a BBC licence you can't listen to anyone else.
What detector vans? There never was any....well there were some empty vans driving around, but none that could actually work out if you were watching tv. Not a single individual has ever been prosecuted via evidence collected from a "detector van".
And they don't even try to pretend these days, as the enforcement is all via Capita, who are quite open that they have a big database and just look at those properties that had a licence, got rid and then they decide which to eventually knock on their door to ask if they need a licence (and you can simply say no thanks, and they have to go away).
And these days, they absolutely can't work out what you are streaming via the internet, unless they get legal warrants to talk to your ISP, and even then use of a simple VPN, means you need GCHQ involved to work it out.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
Probably the reason most of it never comes out is it doesnt reflect current values and the bbc is too woke to consider people should be allowed to see it
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
How much would it cost you to watch all 58 episodes of Boardwalk Empire?
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
If people want radio then let them pay for it.
Why should TV viewers be taxed to pay for radio? What an absurd notion.
I couldn't give a toss about radio.
That is my point. It is BBC radio. Do you think it isn't funded by the LF?
If you want to have a radio subscription then pay for it. Good for you
Gah! That is my entire point.
You should be able to buy the BBC radio on a subscription model.
How popular? No idea but there will be millions of takers at a price.
Same with other modules.
Doesn't get off the ground unless you introduce a new generation of Radio Detector Vans to enforce it. And that would only work if you keep the model that if you don't have a BBC licence you can't listen to anyone else.
Weren't detector vans an entirely empty threat in any case? Maybe the technology has moved on but I doubt it.
Perhaps now we've been softened up with Covid grassing up, a STASI style mass self-surveillance could be encouraged.
'Dear neighborhood watchman, I heard that divvie bloke blasting out My Own Correspondent at 11am yesterday. Don't know if he's got a licence, but he looks like the type not to.
Yours,
A Concerned Citizen'
On paper you could build one at home though I'm not sure if they ever actually did.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
The archive is a genuine national treasure. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Ok, but that just means no one gets to watch it. Wouldn't you rather people get to watch it even if they need to pay £5.99 per month to have access.
Honestly, if the BBC had a "BBC Archive" subscription I'd actually pay for it for the science, nature and other documentaries. As it is there's only terrible VHS quality rips on YouTube that they don't get paid for.
Your stance is weird but exactly what I'd expect.
A £14.99 pcm BBC subscription fee with unlimited, complete on-demand access to the BBC Archive and all the channels that the Beeb currently offer might actually be something that would tempt people to renew their subscriptions without being compelled by law to do so.
Opposing the licence fee in the past meant commercialised ITV style TV as the alternative. It doesn't have to mean that nowadays. Subscriptions work, that model has been shown. The BBC are a subscription service anyway and its not too late to be a better one, if they had the balls to do it.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
How much would it cost you to watch all 58 episodes of Boardwalk Empire?
Its available to me on demand with my Sky subscription.
On demand subscription services is the world we live in now.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
Bollox. Peaky is MILES better than Boardwalk. Your taste buds are off. See a doctor.
I like both of them, agree that Peaky Blinders is the better show but it's not miles better and Boardwalk Empire did it first. Peaky Blinders definitely takes a lot of, err, inspiration from it.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Horizon is consistent - and consistently the best thing the BBC does.
Horizon is a good programme but its been seriously dumbed down since the 1990s IMO.
They like the odd tricksy effect for sure, but in this day and age they are still way ahead of anybody else in making cutting edge science accessible.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
Wanting?
This is the year 2021. On demand is the present not the future.
We have an atomised world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality today. Other than sport and news I don't watch any live broadcast TV and haven't for many years now. Broadcast is dead, everyone sitting together at 7pm to watch the same thing up and down the nation died years ago. Wake up.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
How much would it cost you to watch all 58 episodes of Boardwalk Empire?
It's available on NowTV so not very much.
Ha dammit. So what's that? A tenner a month for Boardwalk Empire. And we already have prime and netflix. On prime, for example, it would cost you £100 for all five seasons of Boardwalk empire.
So now we're at £9.99 (Now), £9.99 (Netflix), £7.99 (Prime) = £336/yr.
Plus Sky Sports = another £120?
And so for those who say "but prime can do that" re the BBC - can it? Plus how many don't buy extra stuff that is not included in prime?
Mr. eek, Russell for the seat in 2022 seems eminently possible.
2022 is a whole new world with new regulations.
I suspect Lewis hated last years championship (remember he stayed in his motorhome on site all the time) and will want to know how this year works out before committing any further.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
Interesting. No radio, current affairs, BBC apps? No "How to Vaccinate the World" (on in an hour, R4)?
That imo and only imo is a diminished experience.
If people want radio then let them pay for it.
Why should TV viewers be taxed to pay for radio? What an absurd notion.
I couldn't give a toss about radio.
That is my point. It is BBC radio. Do you think it isn't funded by the LF?
If you want to have a radio subscription then pay for it. Good for you
Gah! That is my entire point.
You should be able to buy the BBC radio on a subscription model.
How popular? No idea but there will be millions of takers at a price.
Same with other modules.
Doesn't get off the ground unless you introduce a new generation of Radio Detector Vans to enforce it. And that would only work if you keep the model that if you don't have a BBC licence you can't listen to anyone else.
Weren't detector vans an entirely empty threat in any case? Maybe the technology has moved on but I doubt it.
Perhaps now we've been softened up with Covid grassing up, a STASI style mass self-surveillance could be encouraged.
'Dear neighborhood watchman, I heard that divvie bloke blasting out My Own Correspondent at 11am yesterday. Don't know if he's got a licence, but he looks like the type not to.
Yours,
A Concerned Citizen'
Theoretically an old tube TV or monitor could be detected when switched on, but it would have needed to be right in the window of a house to be able to spot it accurately. A 200-room hall of residence, no chance. I doubt they ever had more than a prototype of a “detector van” that worked, and modern LED TVs use completely different technology.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
As a result of the pandemic geologists, oceanographers, ecologists and other field scientists have had to postpone research field trips. This has delayed the publication of research work into climate change and ecosystems, which would have informed policy decisions.
“You can’t Skype meetings with corals,” said Emily Darling, a scientist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, who coordinates monitoring for increasingly threatened coral reefs all over the globe. “Being underwater, and being with the communities that rely on reefs, is the only way we have information about the health of a reef. That information is not available remotely.”
Climate changes, and deforestation that could lead to the next pandemic, are still continuing but we will know less about these variables due to the restrictions affecting field sciences.
Even epidemiology is impacted - anecdotally (including personal experience) data applications and ethics reviews* seem to be taking longer, likely due to fast-tracking of Covid-related stuff. The fast-tracking is reasonable, of course, but impacts even other epidemiological research. I have a number of friends in oceanographic research who have had research cruises delayed or cancelled.
*Actually, for ethics reviews a bit of a mixed bag. My most recent ethics application was head by a review board in Wales as they were the first place I could get booked in. Pre-Covid I would have had to attend in person at one in Yorkshire (where I'm based). Not even sure whether I could have asked to go to the Welsh board in person if they were less busy, would have needed some shifting of budget to pay for the trip. I'd definitely like to see remote reviews continue post-Covid.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
Probably the reason most of it never comes out is it doesnt reflect current values and the bbc is too woke to consider people should be allowed to see it
The BBC is not a ghetto of woke. That's just an alt-right talking point. It really is a nonsense.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
But people already do it. 14m people in the UK subscribe to Netflix, 9m to Amazon Prime, D+ I'd rapidly picking up steam, there's something like 10m subscribers to Spotify premium in the UK and Sky has got 10m customers as well with the majority signed up to boxsets.
We already live in a digitally atomised world, what we're asking for is that the BBC live in the world that exists today not relying on an outdated tax that hits the poor worse than the rich.
Other problem the BBC has is in addition to this ridiculous situation where I have to pay for them even if I only want to watch Sky Sports (which in the era of Spotify and Netflix people find increasingly bizarre), it is how they divide up their content between free / available and pay. They want their cake and eat it, stuff on iplayer for a limited time, then you have to pay for BritBox or buy a DVD box set, despite the tv licence fee having funded that.
Imagine if Netflix only made a season of the Crown available for a year, then said tough luck you need to go and buy the DVD now if you want to watch that season. Or I could only listen to an album on Spotify for a year after release, then I had to go and buy it from iTunes or on CD.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
Or in other words "How terrible it is that people can watch what they enjoy, they should be watching the stuff I think they should watch" and then you wonder why people mock the lefty attitude you have.
Give one good reason why people shouldn't have their own bespoke digitial entertainment
Single dose of Oxford followed by something else might be done for "rest of population". Double Oxford dosers previously done perhaps a top up Saffer jab.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
I tend to agree. We still watch plenty of BBC stuff, much more than from the other broadcast channels (although it is all, apart from live news, via iplayer and the like, not live) but probably less than Netflix. However, most of that is private production companies who would likely sell to other players like Netflix if the BBC wasn't buying.
So, I see the value in news and current affairs and also in the more niche sports, perhaps. I also wonder whether we'd have some of the amazing wildlife documentaries without the BBC. Sure, Netflix do them now and do them well, but would we have ever got to the level we have got to without the public service remit of the BBC? I honestly do not have an answer, but sometimes things are produced because it's a 'good' thing to do and only afterwards is it obvious there is a market for it. We might lose out on those kinds of things without a BBC. Radio too, of course. So I think there's a place for the BBC, but much slimmed down. The question is, can we as a country agree which bits stay in a slimmed down BBC? Why should my desire for the public broadcaster to fun wildlife documentaries trump someone else's desire for them to fund EastEnders?
BBC kids TV is also better than the other broadcasters'. Probably could survive well as a subscription service, but why should kids of rich parents get better (more educational, more nuanced) TV than kids of poor parents? There's also a public service remit there too.
Cant answer for kids tv as I don't watch it but can say there are plenty of very good documentaries on prime and they tend to be series on a subject rather than a single program. A nature example for instance
Re nature documentaries, my question was not whether private providers can do as well (they can) but whether high quality big budget nature programming would have happened without the BBC showing there was an audience for it (I don't know - are there examples of private networks doing really high quality big budget stuff in this area until very recently?)
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
How much would it cost you to watch all 58 episodes of Boardwalk Empire?
Its available to me on demand with my Sky subscription.
On demand subscription services is the world we live in now.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
How much would it cost you to watch all 58 episodes of Boardwalk Empire?
It's available on NowTV so not very much.
Ha dammit. So what's that? A tenner a month for Boardwalk Empire. And we already have prime and netflix. On prime, for example, it would cost you £100 for all five seasons of Boardwalk empire.
So now we're at £9.99 (Now), £9.99 (Netflix), £7.99 (Prime) = £336/yr.
Plus Sky Sports = another £120?
And so for those who say "but prime can do that" re the BBC - can it? Plus how many don't buy extra stuff that is not included in prime?
£120 a year for Sky Sports. You forget that you need to spend £30 for the basic Sky package on top.
Now you can get Netflix with Sky for about £2 but that's still £400 a year for sports not £120.
The BBC make too many wrong decisions. For example, they had two crime shows, Waking The Dead and Silent Witness. Almost everyone agreed that Waking The Dead was the better show, so they cancelled it in favour of continuing to produce Silent Witness.
Silent Witness imdb 7.8/10 from 5902 reviews Waking the Dead imdb 7.8/10 from 5005 reviews
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
I tend to agree. We still watch plenty of BBC stuff, much more than from the other broadcast channels (although it is all, apart from live news, via iplayer and the like, not live) but probably less than Netflix. However, most of that is private production companies who would likely sell to other players like Netflix if the BBC wasn't buying.
So, I see the value in news and current affairs and also in the more niche sports, perhaps. I also wonder whether we'd have some of the amazing wildlife documentaries without the BBC. Sure, Netflix do them now and do them well, but would we have ever got to the level we have got to without the public service remit of the BBC? I honestly do not have an answer, but sometimes things are produced because it's a 'good' thing to do and only afterwards is it obvious there is a market for it. We might lose out on those kinds of things without a BBC. Radio too, of course. So I think there's a place for the BBC, but much slimmed down. The question is, can we as a country agree which bits stay in a slimmed down BBC? Why should my desire for the public broadcaster to fun wildlife documentaries trump someone else's desire for them to fund EastEnders?
BBC kids TV is also better than the other broadcasters'. Probably could survive well as a subscription service, but why should kids of rich parents get better (more educational, more nuanced) TV than kids of poor parents? There's also a public service remit there too.
Cant answer for kids tv as I don't watch it but can say there are plenty of very good documentaries on prime and they tend to be series on a subject rather than a single program. A nature example for instance
Re nature documentaries, my question was not whether private providers can do as well (they can) but whether high quality big budget nature programming would have happened without the BBC showing there was an audience for it (I don't know - are there examples of private networks doing really high quality big budget stuff in this area until very recently?)
Netflix do a huge number of high quality documentaries covering subjects that aren't exactly seen as easy mainstream stuff.
And remember Netflix is in 4k, as is Amazon Prime...the BBC still can't do that outside some very limited tests, they don't do proper HDR. iPlayer tech is a bag of shit.
Its why Disney bought the MLB streaming tech company, so they could roll out their service. The BBC is years behind in the tech department now.
Comments
Otherwise over time the quality of entertainment output goes down as it is starved of money and it loses subscribers to save what is already a dying form of media, radio and news TV.
The answer is to privatise it and let it figure out what the best model is in the private sector without any kind of "public service" remit. If the government wants to fund BBC news then let it do it out of general taxation and take away all editorial output so it's just a guy reading out headlines.
As far as TV goes, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its aspirations.
https://twitter.com/agcolehamilton/status/1358719477605666818?s=20
Asking a witness to accept the constraints of speaking only to evidence selected by you on the undisclosed advice and direction of unidentified others is not acceptable in any forum and is, in our client’s view, particularly offensive when the remit he seeks to address has been set for you by Parliament and addresses the unlawful actions of an elected Government and the needless squandering of hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/to-the-committee/
I am looking forward to listening to How to Vaccinate the World later on BBC Sounds.
You should all do the same, or even listen live (R4, 11.30am), as you're paying for it.
(They still keep a large fleet of reporters all over the world, nearly all of them almost never appearing on domestic media, but the WS keeps reminding you they exist).
As when the Times was a newspaper of record and if the Sudanese government had a major reshuffle they would print a list of the entire Sudanese cabinet.
It does seem these new variants spread very quickly and then die out equally as quickly.
And now - the key batsman...
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Currently tens of millions are compelled by law to subscribe whether they listen to the radio or not.
So expect a switchover from tens of millions subscribing to millions doing so to lead to a bit of rightsizing adjustment but there's nothing wrong with that.
I mean, they've done it three times on the trot now, and never missed any decline outside of those.
Other countries have pulled it off in multiple cases as well.
It's almost as though those two events are somehow linked.
So, I see the value in news and current affairs and also in the more niche sports, perhaps. I also wonder whether we'd have some of the amazing wildlife documentaries without the BBC. Sure, Netflix do them now and do them well, but would we have ever got to the level we have got to without the public service remit of the BBC? I honestly do not have an answer, but sometimes things are produced because it's a 'good' thing to do and only afterwards is it obvious there is a market for it. We might lose out on those kinds of things without a BBC. Radio too, of course. So I think there's a place for the BBC, but much slimmed down. The question is, can we as a country agree which bits stay in a slimmed down BBC? Why should my desire for the public broadcaster to fun wildlife documentaries trump someone else's desire for them to fund EastEnders?
BBC kids TV is also better than the other broadcasters'. Probably could survive well as a subscription service, but why should kids of rich parents get better (more educational, more nuanced) TV than kids of poor parents? There's also a public service remit there too.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Copious amounts unsurprisingly. A few on BBC One like Planet Earth II and a fair few on Sky Nature too.
Other probably older ones on other channels like Gold, W and Eden. Overall a 50/50 split between the Beeb and Commercial TV.
Nothing at all came up for BBC 4.
I'm very much in favour of TOPPING's variable subscription model and maybe a new top price of £20 per month for all services and dedicated channels on the EPG for each service the same as Sky.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
You could probably have a much slimmed-down Beeb producing genuine public service broadcasting funded from general taxation, or have a Quango distribute funds like lottery grants to private broadcasters, for those few areas the market wouldn't produce - mostly the high-brow BB2/BBC4 stuff and children's programs without adverts.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/video/detail/B083SRJSK9/ref=atv_br_def_r_br_c_9jdjhFsmr_1_400 4 part documentary covering the atlantic ocean from season to season and the wildlife that lives in it
As a result of the pandemic geologists, oceanographers, ecologists and other field scientists have had to postpone research field trips. This has delayed the publication of research work into climate change and ecosystems, which would have informed policy decisions.
“You can’t Skype meetings with corals,” said Emily Darling, a scientist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, who coordinates monitoring for increasingly threatened coral reefs all over the globe. “Being underwater, and being with the communities that rely on reefs, is the only way we have information about the health of a reef. That information is not available remotely.”
Climate changes, and deforestation that could lead to the next pandemic, are still continuing but we will know less about these variables due to the restrictions affecting field sciences.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
It means that the likes of Sherlock wouldn't have had gigantic gaps in between seasons, it would have had at 10 episodes per season and Martin Freeaman and Benedict Cumberbatch would have been signed up for 40-50 episodes before they could decide they'd had enough. Not only does that mean a better experience for viewers, it also means the BBC gets serious licence revenue from Netflix and other streaming services for their content.
Then iPlayer might actually be useful or popular.
Again, what is the BBC is for, is it to be a charity case where actors help them out, so the poor British public can have a bit of good content from time to time? Or is it going to be a proper content production outfit?
And why not sign up new talent that would be happy for such an opportunity? That how we got the likes of Idris Elba via HBO's The Wire.
In a world of on demand media it really doesn't matter how many episodes are produced - the need for 20-25 episodes to strap it in a time slot for the entire year doesn't exist anymore.
Under a subscription model, however, you would be able to purchase access to BBC Radio and the apps without having Philip pay for you.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
You're stark raving bonkers.
Perhaps now we've been softened up with Covid grassing up, a STASI style mass self-surveillance could be encouraged.
'Dear neighborhood watchman, I heard that divvie bloke blasting out My Own Correspondent at 11am yesterday. Don't know if he's got a licence, but he looks like the type not to.
Yours,
A Concerned Citizen'
Honestly, if the BBC had a "BBC Archive" subscription I'd actually pay for it for the science, nature and other documentaries. As it is there's only terrible VHS quality rips on YouTube that they don't get paid for.
Your stance is weird but exactly what I'd expect.
How much would it cost you to watch all 58 episodes of Boardwalk Empire?
And they don't even try to pretend these days, as the enforcement is all via Capita, who are quite open that they have a big database and just look at those properties that had a licence, got rid and then they decide which to eventually knock on their door to ask if they need a licence (and you can simply say no thanks, and they have to go away).
And these days, they absolutely can't work out what you are streaming via the internet, unless they get legal warrants to talk to your ISP, and even then use of a simple VPN, means you need GCHQ involved to work it out.
Opposing the licence fee in the past meant commercialised ITV style TV as the alternative. It doesn't have to mean that nowadays. Subscriptions work, that model has been shown. The BBC are a subscription service anyway and its not too late to be a better one, if they had the balls to do it.
On demand subscription services is the world we live in now.
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1358725884828651521?s=20
The Crown Office? That unimpeachable bastion of probity?
This is the year 2021. On demand is the present not the future.
We have an atomised world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality today. Other than sport and news I don't watch any live broadcast TV and haven't for many years now. Broadcast is dead, everyone sitting together at 7pm to watch the same thing up and down the nation died years ago. Wake up.
So now we're at £9.99 (Now), £9.99 (Netflix), £7.99 (Prime) = £336/yr.
Plus Sky Sports = another £120?
And so for those who say "but prime can do that" re the BBC - can it? Plus how many don't buy extra stuff that is not included in prime?
I suspect Lewis hated last years championship (remember he stayed in his motorhome on site all the time) and will want to know how this year works out before committing any further.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1358741806142414848?s=20
*Actually, for ethics reviews a bit of a mixed bag. My most recent ethics application was head by a review board in Wales as they were the first place I could get booked in. Pre-Covid I would have had to attend in person at one in Yorkshire (where I'm based). Not even sure whether I could have asked to go to the Welsh board in person if they were less busy, would have needed some shifting of budget to pay for the trip. I'd definitely like to see remote reviews continue post-Covid.
We already live in a digitally atomised world, what we're asking for is that the BBC live in the world that exists today not relying on an outdated tax that hits the poor worse than the rich.
Imagine if Netflix only made a season of the Crown available for a year, then said tough luck you need to go and buy the DVD now if you want to watch that season. Or I could only listen to an album on Spotify for a year after release, then I had to go and buy it from iTunes or on CD.
Give one good reason why people shouldn't have their own bespoke digitial entertainment
Now you can get Netflix with Sky for about £2 but that's still £400 a year for sports not £120.
Waking the Dead imdb 7.8/10 from 5005 reviews
Strange use of "almost everyone".
And remember Netflix is in 4k, as is Amazon Prime...the BBC still can't do that outside some very limited tests, they don't do proper HDR. iPlayer tech is a bag of shit.
Its why Disney bought the MLB streaming tech company, so they could roll out their service. The BBC is years behind in the tech department now.