| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Still waiting for the UK to privatize television |
Finally, I can rest my case. British telly was pioneering but not particularly good while wholly in the public sector. Then in 1955 it was part-privatised and became very good as the BBC was forced to popularise in order to compete. From then on, channels were parcelled out private/public depending on various factors and during that time British telly has been generally considered (by far) the best in the world. Though it has to be conceded that this was probably only attainable because of access to (always private) American series and films.
However we do pay for this (a hundred and some pounds a year currently) which, given how much everybody watches telly, is a reasonable compulsory levy. Now that there are just two channels paid for by the licence fee and several hundred not, what happens from hereonin remains to be seen.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Now that there are just two channels paid for by the licence fee... |
Have you not gone digital yet Mick? The Beeb has zillions of channels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear, Chad, I worded my reply very carefully. All these zillions of channels have advertising. I believe BBC-1 and BBC-2 are the only ones that remain unsullied. And by the by, why do I have to put up with wall to wall advertising on Sky Sports when I pay a vast subscription?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Still waiting for that list of repealed entitlement programs....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | ...And by the by, why do I have to put up with wall to wall advertising on Sky Sports when I pay a vast subscription? |
Exactly.
Whether you watch the BBC or not, all must pay.
The state is a parasite on the private industry, paid for already by advertising. But you can't have access to those already-paid-for programs unless you hand over additional money to the government, which is selling you a service it not produce. It stole those goods then makes you pay to retrieve them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Oh dear, Chad, I worded my reply very carefully. All these zillions of channels have advertising. I believe BBC-1 and BBC-2 are the only ones that remain unsullied. |
I'm aware that the Beeb's international services are commercially self financing, but those additional digital channels aimed at the domestic audience.... BBC-3, BBC-4, News 24, CBBC, Cbeebies (not to mention all those radio channels).... are supposed to be financed from the licence fee.
If I'm wrong on this I will be demanding a refund !
Key Facts
TV Licence Fee: facts & figures
Last updated April 2009
The BBC's domestic broadcasting services are financed by the TV Licence.
The Government sets the level of the licence fee.
The current fee -- from 1 April 2009 -- is £142.50 for a colour licence and £48.00 for a black-and-white licence.
The licence fee pays for:
the television channels BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News, BBC Parliament, CBBC and CBeebies;
five network radio services, plus BBC Asian Network, and digital radio services BBC 1Xtra, BBC Radio 7, BBC 6 Music and BBC 5 Live Sports Extra;
regional television programmes and Local Radio services in England;
national radio and television in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
BBC Red Button, BBC Mobile and the BBC website (bbc.co.uk) | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | The current fee -- from 1 April 2009 -- is £142.50 for a colour licence and £48.00 for a black-and-white licence. |
Really. Black and white eh? I guess it costs them less when you receive their color signal on a black and white television?
Here we see the efficiency of state enterprise at work.
And how much do they charge to watch the same signal on a High Definition television? Or do they have those in the Unitedski Kingdomski yet?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| during that time British telly has been generally considered (by far) the best in the world |
I thought cliche wasn't allowed in this blog? This old chestnut is used all the time: "British TV may be rubbish, but it's the least bad TV in the world." But is it really true? How many programmes from the so-called golden age of TV would you watch again?
The reason I begrudge the licence fee is that TV is rubbish and it should be rubbish. It's mindless pap which relaxes the brain before you go to bed. Why should I be taxed so various BBC pseudo-intellectuals can produce middle-brow programmes for me?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | ...this blog |
BLOG ?!?
You mean we've been blogging, without most of us (well me at least) realising it?
Jeez... the grandkids will be well impressed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Still waiting for that list of repealed entitlement programs.... |
University used to be free in the UK until Labour introduced fees in the 90's sometime. I suppose they were introduced because it was unfair that the upper classes were getting something for free. Of course, now only the well-off can afford the fees. Or maybe the fees were introduced to mitigate the fact that that which is free has no value. Or maybe fees were introduced because at the time, the government couldn't afford to fund surfing degrees without the student's contribution:
http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/1645/BSc+(Hons)+Surf+Science+and+Technology
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| University used to be free in the UK until Labour introduced fees in the 90's sometime. I suppose they were introduced because it was unfair that the upper classes were getting something for free. |
No, they were introduced because the Tories decided to massively increase the number of university places to make their education policy look good. Then even the Labour government realised it couldn't afford to provide a university education for anyone who wants one.
The argument we constantly hear in the media is "how can we fund university education" but no one dares say "why do we send so many stupid people to university? Make them go to work."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Or maybe fees were introduced because at the time, the government couldn't afford to fund surfing degrees without the student's contribution: |
It is the AE postion that all universities be closed down except, Ã la US universities, for their extremely useful sports programmes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
It is the AE postion that all universities be closed down except, Ã la US universities, for their extremely useful sports programmes. |
But what do you mean? Do you think that we shouldn't train doctors or engineers and that anyone should be allowed to perform surgery or build skyscrapers? Do you think that capitalism itself would be sufficient to weed out those incapable of performing surgery or building things that could easily fall over and kill people, because after they make a few mistakes the incapable would have no customers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Rocky wrote: | | Mick Harper wrote: | | It is the AE postion that all universities be closed down except, Ã la US universities, for their extremely useful sports programmes. |
But what do you mean? Do you think that we shouldn't train doctors or engineers and that anyone should be allowed to perform surgery or build skyscrapers? Do you think that capitalism itself would be sufficient to weed out those incapable of performing surgery or building things that could easily fall over and kill people, because after they make a few mistakes the incapable would have no customers? |
Let employers run the schools and they will pay you to attend.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| But what do you mean? Do you think that we shouldn't train doctors or engineers and that anyone should be allowed to perform surgery or build skyscrapers? |
A fascinating example of the kind of argument that Thomas Cromwell had to listen to when he was dissoluting the monasteries. Did you not know that doctors are mainly trained in teaching hospitals, Rocky? That engineers have been trained in all manner of institutions (mainly capitalist companies of course) other than univeristies ever since engineering existed?
| Do you think that capitalism itself would be sufficient to weed out those incapable of performing surgery or building things that could easily fall over and kill people, because after they make a few mistakes the incapable would have no customers? |
I can't recall mentioning capitalism. As with the monasteries, I expect a hundred flowers to bloom as soon as we get rid of the universities, some of which no doubt will be testing-engineering-skills flowers.
As far as I know most buildings I have ever been in were built by capitalists and their engineer-lackeys and so far very few have fallen down. Though I will check whether those that did were or were not built by engineers trained at universities and get back to you. It's the kind of correlation we'd all like to have when entering an unknown building. Perhaps a blue plaque scheme might suffice. As I say, a hundred flowers...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
