s/o License for TV- good or bad?

[I talk to the trees]

Pqr- I hope you don't mind if I spin off from something you said in the "Incomes" thread. I have a horrible habit of getting my undies in a bunch when posting to threads like that one, so I'm staying out! But I think you raised an interesting point about television when you said,

 

"...they also have wonderful revenue raising procedures such as a licence to own a TV..."

 

We do not even own a television set. I feel that 99% of the shows available are absolute garbage, and boy! Don't get me started about commercials! BUT... we do have dvd's, most of which are BBC shows. It is my understanding that the fees collected from television licenses allow corporations like the BBC to depend less on the ratings, and concentrate instead on producing shows of higher quality. While I am sure that there are plenty of dull, tasteless shows on the air in the UK, I have to say that the shows that I have seen are far better written and acted than similar shows here in the US. I think that not having to *always* play to the lowest common denominator is what allows them to make superior productions. So I would love to see a system like that introduced in the US. Anyone else?

 

Discuss!

[MSNative]

There's a hot button issue. I only lived in England for a couple of years, but during that short period, I saw that people were ticked because they paid the fee for BBC yet watched Sky and other channels.

 

The main problem with it is that people are forced to pay a fee to a company that then deems what is "good." Could be, and often was, complete junk. I wish we could unbundle everything and just pay simply for what we want to watch. There are lots of documentaries I'd pay to watch. I just dont' care to pay for cable so that I can have access to 150+ channels of drivel and 2 decent documentaries. I'm with you. I buy or rent the dvd.

[hillfarm]

This has been my long time wish also. To be able to purchase a la carte television programming. I imagine it would be fascinating to see how it would all shake out if we were permitted that choice. Would there really continue to be so many home shopping channels? What would the public vote for with our viewing dollars and time? Would the demand for high quality programming go up or would it sink to the level of bawdy, low rent sit-coms?

 

In my rural area, cable in not available. The only options are local broadcast or satellite. Because we live down in a hollow, we would have to cut a number of large trees and the companies still won't guarantee that we could get reception. So (hello, advertisers, are you listening???), we watch more and more via the internet, basically piecing together what we want. We are college educated adults with disposable income. If you want to reach us with your advertising dollars, you will have to support shows like Nature, educational documentaries, insightful humor and comedy, practical how-tos. We will NEVER see your ads if you support racy sit coms, judge shows, soft porn reality shows, or grimy crime shows.

 

IMO, the only way to change what is available is to work through the advertisers. Let them know what we don't want and what we do.

[Audrey]

Pqr- I hope you don't mind if I spin off from something you said in the "Incomes" thread. I have a horrible habit of getting my undies in a bunch when posting to threads like that one, so I'm staying out! But I think you raised an interesting point about television when you said,

 

"...they also have wonderful revenue raising procedures such as a licence to own a TV..."

 

We do not even own a television set. I feel that 99% of the shows available are absolute garbage, and boy! Don't get me started about commercials! BUT... we do have dvd's, most of which are BBC shows. It is my understanding that the fees collected from television licenses allow corporations like the BBC to depend less on the ratings, and concentrate instead on producing shows of higher quality. While I am sure that there are plenty of dull, tasteless shows on the air in the UK, I have to say that the shows that I have seen are far better written and acted than similar shows here in the US. I think that not having to *always* play to the lowest common denominator is what allows them to make superior productions. So I would love to see a system like that introduced in the US. Anyone else?

 

Discuss!

 

 

The BBC (like the CBC) is a national media outlet, though. The licence fees support the national media. The US doesn't have such a thing as a national media outlet, so a TV license doesn't make much sense. To whom would the revenue go if there is no national media?

 

Btw, there is no TV licence in Canada, but I would pay one if it meant they would stop cutting back on CBC services and programming. It is pretty much the only source for uniquely Canadian radio and television programming. I listen to CBC Radio all. the. time. I maintain that one could garner a pretty impressive and well-rounded education just by listening to CBC Radio.

[RoughCollie]

No way I will pay a license fee (translate: more taxes) when I already have to pay to watch t.v., it's a lot of money, and the shows have many long commercials.

[justasque]

I listen to CBC Radio all. the. time. I maintain that one could garner a pretty impressive and well-rounded education just by listening to CBC Radio.

 

Actually, I also listen to CBC Radio all. the. time, even though I am in the States. And a ton of BBC too, both via podcasts. I highly recommend this! I have learned so much from shows like the BBC's Excess Baggage (travel show, mostly featuring authors who have written travel books of one kind or another), Farming Today (a short report on farming, of interest to foodies), and Women's Hour (a wide variety of topics) or CBC's The North This Week (life in the far north - interesting from a cultural/geographic perspective). The BBC even has a rural/farming soap opera - The Archers. It's so nice that these shows can be so portable; they are perfect for long car rides. So thanks all you Brits who pay your license fees! And all you Canadians who pay your taxes!

[Skadi]

It isn't about how a company garners the money to produce the television that creates different products. It's the difference in the audiences. British society demands more period dramas and dry humor. American society demands more reality shows and shows like Desperate Housewives.

 

Even in America, you'll see a difference between the shows produced on network television and cable television -- a higher percentage of wealthier households (e.g. more education and therefore higher on the curve) can afford to watch HBO, ergo you'll get more shows like Rome. It's not as clear cut when it comes to that because of course cable networks want to cast their nets as wide as they can, but it's something to consider. We only watch TV shows through Netflix and we hate commercials too, but I am skeptical that it's the only deciding factor in quality. :P

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Many years ago, there was some doubt over whether PBS would continue to get the level of government funding that it wanted. They started running a series of spots with a tagline asking "Without PBS, who will . . ." and then showing clips of PBS shows. One of the cable channels (I think it was Discovery) started running ads saying "We will" and showing clips of their shows. In the ensuing years, there have been incredible shows created for cable. Yeah, there is junk, but there are also entire channels devoted to science and nature programing.

 

My point is that while there are some great shows on public television, there are also fantastic shows on cable. And I don't think you should underestimate the income for BBC that comes from both DVD sales (like the shows you've purchased) and the sale of shows to overseas networks for rebroadcast.

 

I think that there is a selection bias going on. The shows that are exported/sold on DVD may be well done. But what about all of the other hours of programming across all of the BBC channels. It would be like comparing the couple cable shows that I like with all of the programming on network TV that I find innane.

 

BTW, in many countries, there is also a radio license. You are required to annually allow an inspector/tax official to enter your home for the purpose of counting your radios and assessing you your tax. This was the case in Germany when we lived there.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Sebastian (a lady)

[keptwoman]

New Zealand used to have a broadcasting fee and canned it, but the govt continued to fund NZ made programming to ensure that there was good quality local content.

Australia legislates a certain amount of local content, which I think works well and we get a good range of Australian programming. The thing is, if those governments didn't do things like that, we might end up with only US programming as in many cases, it's cheaper to buy a program than to make it. And no offence, but we don't want to be swamped with your culture.

[shannatheshedevil]

Not all shows on BBC are The Holy Grail of TV.

[Ray]

We do have PBS which does get a cut of the take, but I don't really know how much I pay for QPP (quality programming protection). With a T.V. license the market could be segmented, e.g. 52â€plasma’s pay xxx dollars while say Green LCD’s would pay x – for the same swindle. :auto:

[Farrar]

I have very mixed feelings on this. First, I don't think TV in the US is crap. Well, it's mostly crap, but so is TV in the UK. So speaking from that point of view, I don't think a British style system would be that helpful.

 

However, there are some things about the BBC that I like. The BBC has a mission that is separate from just making money. As I understand it, yes, they want popular shows, but they're also charged with making programs that all the parts of their audience (even the smaller segments) will enjoy and using the AI in addition to ratings helps them do that.

 

The main thing I like is that the BBC has a commitment to try and make quality programs for children of all ages. Here, I feel like there are many quality programs made for younger kids - especially preschoolers. Shows are aired without ads. While there is obviously a moneymaking goal in mind, networks have committed to air programs that explore educational content. However, once kids are about 7 or 8, they're stuck with Disney or ABC Family's very sexualized, gender stereotyped, brainless filler shows. BBC makes stuff for that age group that is the sort of stuff we never see here on any network (I think it's no surprise that CBeebies shows commonly make it to the US, but CBBC programs rarely do). It's not all amazing quality or anything, but at least they're trying to make shows that appeal to 6th graders that aren't The Suite Life.

[ColoradoMom]

Not all shows on BBC are The Holy Grail of TV.

 

Thank you! :lol: You couldn't pay me money to watch BBC and I'm sorry but allowing the government to define "quality" is a scary proposition in my opinion. If the US ever got "government TV" we might as well just call ourselves Venezuela and get it over with.

[K-FL]

I don't understand why we fund (with our tax dollars) shows like Sesame Street, & Prairie Home Companion.

Seems like they're doing quite well w/o welfare.

[Murphy101]

Just about the only thing I use a tv for is netflix, so I'd be royal ticked if the govt assessed a fee. I don't have cable. I have these HUGE rabbit ears the length of my 64" tv for the rare occasion when we watch tv.

[pooh bear]

There are other non satellite TV broadcasters in the UK.

 

ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

 

The TV license fee, $228 - per year, is paid to the BBC and none of the other broadcasters get any of the money.

 

If you have a TV in your house and it is connected to an aerial you have to pay the TV license fee, even if you don't watch the BBC.

 

This is from the TV License website

 

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

 

But if you are watching a TV show after it has been broadcasted, then you are OK to watch them on your computer with out a license.

 

While I do miss not having commercials in my TV shows - yeah for Netflix - I would not want a TV license here in the USA.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Pooh Bear

[lionfamily1999]

No way I will pay a license fee (translate: more taxes) when I already have to pay to watch t.v., it's a lot of money, and the shows have many long commercials.

:iagree:

Thank you! :lol: You couldn't pay me money to watch BBC and I'm sorry but allowing the government to define "quality" is a scary proposition in my opinion. If the US ever got "government TV" we might as well just call ourselves Venezuela and get it over with.

:iagree:

 

I find the idea of a government run news source a little scary. Then, I trust my government as far as I could throw them ;)

 

ETA, and I love watching some BBC shows.

[shannatheshedevil]

Thank you! :lol: You couldn't pay me money to watch BBC and I'm sorry but allowing the government to define "quality" is a scary proposition in my opinion. If the US ever got "government TV" we might as well just call ourselves Venezuela and get it over with.

:iagree: