For UK members. If you own a TV you must have a licence. WRONG!

reply to post by michael1983l

Even if the BBC failed to be broadcast anymore, News International and BSkyB would not be the sole broadcaster in the UK in fact far from it. The majority of channels broadcast on Sky are produced by independant broadcasters. Then there is major broadcasters like ITV, Channel 5, Al Jazeera, CNBC, CNN, and many more to list that are all independant of Murdoch and all produce their own news service. What you are saying is just scare mongering, at the end of the day in this modern age funding the TV license should be by choice and I am sorry it is not a choice that if you choose not to that you cannot watch TV at all, that is called a monopoly, TV license fee is a crime and I can't believe the government have gotten away with it for so long.

Yes there are other broadcasters on Sky, but they own the platform and that gives them immence power over what is and isn't shown.

ITV, Channel 4 and C5 use transmitters to broadcast on analogue (just) and freeview that are financed via the licence fee. The TV licence isn't just for funding the BBC.

reply to post by Insomniac


Sky is not the only platform, we also have

Virgin Media
Freeview
Freesat
BT Vision
YouView.

Then you have streams of individual channels available online via their own web pages much like eurosport do.

I am a broadcast Engineer by the way so I am pretty clued up on what happens in the broadcast industry.

You lot saying all you do is play games, watch DVD's and only catch up TV make me laugh, you know you're telling porkies !

Not paying for stuff is a british hobby, as is anti-authoritarianism, so i'm totally with you but you should at least have the guts to say "ye i watch TV but i'm not paying whitehall for the pleasure".

You Cowards ;+]

btw, i don't pay it but my GF insists on it and i'm too scared of her to argue

reply to post by qvision


I watch it much like I would eat Pizza for free if the Domino's guy came and stuffed a pizza through my letter box every night without me asking then him turning up at the end of the month expecting payment. If the BBC and other subsidised broadcasters do not want me to watch their content, then encrypt it. Pushing something into my home that I do not wish to pay for then getting upset if I use the product is a bit silly really isn't it.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Insomniac

 

Sky is not the only platform, we also have

Virgin Media
Freeview
Freesat
BT Vision
YouView.

Then you have streams of individual channels available online via their own web pages much like eurosport do.

I am a broadcast Engineer by the way so I am pretty clued up on what happens in the broadcast industry.

Freeview is funded by the licence fee, Freesat I'm not sure about and the others aren't available everywhere. I've worked in TV Broadcast for 24 years, so I'm pretty clued up too.

Edit to add: Just checked Freesat is a joint venture between ITV and BBC so guess what? The licence fee contributes to that too.

Source

Yes but it's YOU who presses the buttons and makes the choices.

reply to post by Insomniac


Freeview is not funded by the license fee at all, it is a consortium of broadcasters, yes BBC is involved but it wouldn't fold should they be withdrawn as the majority is independant broadcasters.

P.s. Freeview is only the platform of which is relativly cheap to maintain, all it involves is an EPG and a bit of advertising and administration.

The Organisation Freeview is managed by DTV Services Ltd, a company owned and run by its five shareholders - BBC, BSkyB, Channel 4, ITV and Arqiva. Launched in October 2002, the Freeview service provides free-to-air digital TV channels, radio stations and interactive services through an aerial.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Insomniac

 

Freeview is not funded by the license fee at all, it is a consortium of broadcasters, yes BBC is involved but it wouldn't fold should they be withdrawn as the majority is independant broadcasters.

P.s. Freeview is only the platform of which is relativly cheap to maintain, all it involves is an EPG and a bit of advertising and administration.

How do you think Freeview channels get into peoples homes? Apart from getting the signal to the transmitters, the transmitters use power, they need to be staffed, they need to be maintained. Arqiva is the company paid by the government to provide this service and the money comes (yet again) from the licence fee. Oh yes, nearly forgot... The network hub needs to be paid for.

reply to post by Insomniac


Funny you should say that because I work for Arqiva and each individual channel that is broadcast on the Freeview platform is delivered and paid for by the individual channel themselves and a fee is also paid for by the channel owner to the Freeview Platform (DTV Services Ltd.) for the priveledge of being allowed on their EPG. Again your assumtions are incorrect.

And the government have subsidised the switchover to Digital but will soon be profiting from the wholesale of the released analogue frequency band auctions.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Insomniac

 

Funny you should say that because I work for Arqiva and each individual channel that is broadcast on the Freeview platform is delivered and paid for by the individual channel themselves and a fee is also paid for by the channel owner to the Freeview Platform (DTV Services Ltd.) for the priveledge of being allowed on their EPG. Again your assumtions are incorrect.

We're at slightly cross purposes here, I'm not saying the channels don't pay to be on the EPG, I'm saying that the transmitter network is funded separately.

reply to post by Insomniac


The transmitter network is owned and maintained solely by Arqiva Ltd a private for profit company. The BBC as well as every other channel pays Arqiva for the use of their network. Arqiva are regulated tightly so are only allowed to make a maximum profit of say 8% (guess) as they are technically a monopoly. The government has funded part of the Digital Switchover but I am not sure this money has all come from the license fee or any at all.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Insomniac

 

The transmitter network is owned and maintained solely by Arqiva Ltd a private for profit company. The BBC as well as every other channel pays Arqiva for the use of their network. Arqiva are regulated tightly so are only allowed to make a maximum profit of say 8% (guess) as they are technically a monopoly. The government has funded part of the Digital Switchover but I am not sure this money has all come from the license fee or any at all.

The transmitter network was paid for by the licence fee before being sold to Arqiva. Arqiva are now paid a fee by the government (via the licence fee) to run that service. You say others pay to? You may be right, but I thought they just paid to be on the EPG.You'll find though that the digital switchover is funded by the licence fee.

reply to post by Insomniac


The transmitter network used to be publically owned in part but the ITU also owned part of it. It was put up for auction and National Grid Wireless won who were later bought up by Arqiva. So even if when part of the network was owned by the public that the license fee funded it is irrelevant because Arqiva paid Billions of pounds to own this network. Ever since then each channel that uses the network pay for the service themselves and to my knowledge the government doesn't fund the network at all.

It might also be of note that the original network was in fact analogue and would now be worthless. Yes the government has subsidised the upgrade to digital but Arqiva has met most of this cost themselves.

They've been screwing y'all so long you think it's normal.I applaud alternative measures.Its a control thing, much the same as the (many countries)ban on two way radios...CB,FRS,etc.With this "license"they know where every set is.....Bolt Hold Open and his Masters would like the same and more here

reply to post by wigit


I stopped paying for a License when i realised i don't watch the TV all day long like some people.... why should one have to pay the same amount as others who watch all day long and you may only watch an hour of TV a day????

Its the same as 'water usage'... why should one person have to pay the same amount as 4 people??? At my old place i managed to get the water bill down but only after they sent someone round to check me out!!

Doesn't add up!!

Sorry replied to wrong post.

reply to post by Insomniac


Very good point, you are indeed right. The license fee did fund the BBC's change to Digital. However Arqiva did not see this money nor was it intended to upgrade the transmitter network. Much more infrastructure needs upgrading other than the transmitter network.

The BBC Licence fee is just enforced gangsterism in my opinion there is very little good content on thier
channels IMO and yes they do ADVERTISE !
They advertise themselves all of the time on thier channels anyone not seeing this is sadly brainwashed or ignorant of this they are between nearly every programme!!!!

The straw that broke the camels back for me was the overwhelming support across the board on BBC channels for the Global Warming Agenda now changed to Climate Change.
The coverage of Global Warming and it's imminent threat was so prevelant across the BBC channels it made your eyes water and became a big turn off for me.
I recently asked friends and acquaintances if they had noticed the BBC had calmed down the rhetoric on Global Warming, and every single one had noticed the (almost) deafening silence on the subject since the whole
idea of MMGW has been brought under further scrutiny.

This is just one subject area with which the BBC is unabashedly biased and I for one do not wish to be threatened by state sponsored goons to pay for this unbalanced biased crud. Thanks but no Thanks.

The BBC targets people in more deprived areas for non payment of the licence and the reason more women are hauled up in court for non payment of the licence fee in my eyes and many others I know is that less educated women especially single women with children appear to me easier targets for the BBC goons than the better educated and more affluent nieghborhoods are.

I live in what would be classed as one of the more deprived areas in my city and have had personal experience of friends being targeted by these goons only to vanish for good once confronted (peacefully and correctly) so please do not attempt to convince me this doesn't happen as I have had first hand experience with these BBC goons and thier lies on the doorstep.

Originally posted by Insomniac

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Insomniac

 

The transmitter network is owned and maintained solely by Arqiva Ltd a private for profit company. The BBC as well as every other channel pays Arqiva for the use of their network. Arqiva are regulated tightly so are only allowed to make a maximum profit of say 8% (guess) as they are technically a monopoly. The government has funded part of the Digital Switchover but I am not sure this money has all come from the license fee or any at all.

The transmitter network was paid for by the licence fee before being sold to Arqiva. Arqiva are now paid a fee by the government (via the licence fee) to run that service. You say others pay to? You may be right, but I thought they just paid to be on the EPG.You'll find though that the digital switchover is funded by the licence fee.

Just found it: The digital switchover cost £800 million of licence fee money...

WWW.Parliament.UK

Originally posted by Insomniac

Originally posted by Insomniac

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Insomniac

 

The transmitter network is owned and maintained solely by Arqiva Ltd a private for profit company. The BBC as well as every other channel pays Arqiva for the use of their network. Arqiva are regulated tightly so are only allowed to make a maximum profit of say 8% (guess) as they are technically a monopoly. The government has funded part of the Digital Switchover but I am not sure this money has all come from the license fee or any at all.

The transmitter network was paid for by the licence fee before being sold to Arqiva. Arqiva are now paid a fee by the government (via the licence fee) to run that service. You say others pay to? You may be right, but I thought they just paid to be on the EPG.You'll find though that the digital switchover is funded by the licence fee.

Just found it: The digital switchover cost £800 million of licence fee money...

WWW.Parliament.UK

see above post in relation to this aspect

"The Government has decided to pay over £800 million of ring-fenced licence fee money to the BBC to fund digital switchover, without either ensuring adequate accountability to Parliament or spelling out exactly what it wants for the money. This has put value for money at risk."

A digital encoder costs around £40,000 bearing in mind the bbc will need hundreds of these and new multiplex systems and other areas I think you might start to get an idea of where that money went.