No More Money for BBC from Me

[scotview]

I'm a fan too. If all these people hate it so much, cancel your license and go to Sky/Netflix/AnyTVwill do and stop moaning about it. Move on.

Can you just cancel your licence fee, just like that ? What if BBC appears on the Sky scheduler ?

[Gerry557]

So your indoor world is not real. You are not alone. Just one of the mass hypnotized. I cannot click my fingers and bring you out.
I judge there is hope for you, being intelligent and articulate, but sadly not for the majority.

Why do you say its not real? Although I've worked out which film you are now talking about. The Matrix is one of my all time favourites. The lobby scene is always a goto to demo my tech. Even better now its on UHD with Atmos sound.

As for the mass hypnotised, they might be happy with the blue pill.

Maybe you can tell us more of life after the red pill so we can get envious and want to swap towards whatever you are doing. I'm assuming posting here doesn't count. Is online real or even indoors. With smartphones I can post from the balcony of the hotel whilst watching the surfing. The clotted cream tastes real but then again blue pills do that.

[Gerry557]

I've a confession to make. For a long time, in fact for most of my life, I've been a habitual user of 'beeb'. OK, I know it's an addiction and I know there are other products and suppliers out there but it works for me. Sometimes I've dabbled with other, more commercial stuff but nothing gives me the rush of a good BBC 4 documentary or a Radio 3 concert. I fully get why the government want to abolish it, and the right wing press want to hustle in with their own product though. There are huge profits to be made from feeding the masses with the new breed of synthetic concoctions such as 'luveyeland', 24hourgolf, international paint drying and trashy American dope. What's more, they charge the poor punter to pay double or triple the cost of 'beeb' and even then, contaminate their lines with impurities such as 'advert' and 'sponsor'. Then, once hooked, they mess about with the punters head. What they thought you were scoring will be moved to a new supplier, enticing them to spend more just to get the same hit. Soon, their kids will be going without food and clothes just so they can get high on the new batch of 'tigerking'. So no thanks, I know it's not fashionable in these parts but I'll stick with 'beeb'

PS. Roger Waters was out by a factor of 100

I'm a fan too. If all these people hate it so much, cancel your license and go to Sky/Netflix/AnyTVwill do and stop moaning about it. Move on.

I take it you haven't tried to cancel your TV licence. They make it nearly impossible to do. I have tried in the past and can't believe the hoops they invent. Would love a simple insert licence number and click "cancel" button with an email confirmation and refund to card option, if only.

[Mike4]

I'm a fan too. If all these people hate it so much, cancel your license and go to Sky/Netflix/AnyTVwill do and stop moaning about it. Move on.

Can you just cancel your licence fee, just like that ? What if BBC appears on the Sky scheduler ?

I think the best thing to do is simply not renew it. And what if it does appear on the Sky scheduler. Are you obliged in some way to select it? I dunno, not having Sky!

The whole thing reminds me of the way Brexiters tell Remainers to "get over it". People who don't like paying for BBC, don't buy a license and don't watch it. What IS so difficult about that?

[Dod101]

Can you just cancel your licence fee, just like that ? What if BBC appears on the Sky scheduler ?

I think the best thing to do is simply not renew it. And what if it does appear on the Sky scheduler. Are you obliged in some way to select it? I dunno, not having Sky!

The whole thing reminds me of the way Brexiters tell Remainers to "get over it". People who don't like paying for BBC, don't buy a license and don't watch it. What IS so difficult about that?

The TV license covers more than just BBC so if you plan simply not to watch BBC you still need a license if say you have Sky.

Dod

[Mike4]

I think the best thing to do is simply not renew it. And what if it does appear on the Sky scheduler. Are you obliged in some way to select it? I dunno, not having Sky!

The whole thing reminds me of the way Brexiters tell Remainers to "get over it". People who don't like paying for BBC, don't buy a license and don't watch it. What IS so difficult about that?

The TV license covers more than just BBC so if you plan simply not to watch BBC you still need a license if say you have Sky.

Dod

Oh I see, I was wondering if there was something like that.

That seems highly unreasonable. Maybe a good compromise would be to change the law so you don't need a TV license to watch Sky, only to watch the BBC.

[scotview]

What IS so difficult about that?

Absolutely nothing.

I just dont know the mechanism, how difficult it is to do , how easy to reinstate.

Other little thingy's like, if our granddaughter clicks on a bbc channel on SkyQ after we've given up our licence. Seems a bit Heath Robinson to me.

[servodude]

The TV license covers more than just BBC so if you plan simply not to watch BBC you still need a license if say you have Sky.

Dod

Oh I see, I was wondering if there was something like that.

That seems highly unreasonable. Maybe a good compromise would be to change the law so you don't need a TV license to watch Sky, only to watch the BBC.

I think it's to do with using technology with the ability to demodulate traditional broadcasts
- so say Sky from a box on to a monitor wouldn't require "the" license

[Dod101]

The TV license covers more than just BBC so if you plan simply not to watch BBC you still need a license if say you have Sky.

Dod

Oh I see, I was wondering if there was something like that.

That seems highly unreasonable. Maybe a good compromise would be to change the law so you don't need a TV license to watch Sky, only to watch the BBC.

Possibly, but you can see why the current licensing system is so out of date. We need a licence to watch any television, but the proceeds of it go to the BBC, not general revenue, dating back to the time no doubt when the BBC was the only broadcaster.

Dod

[scotview]

Possibly, but you can see why the current licensing system is so out of date. We need a licence to watch any television, but the proceeds of it go to the BBC, not general revenue, dating back to the time no doubt when the BBC was the only broadcaster.

Dod

I didn't know that.

[MrFoolish]

Reading the above comments, there seems to be two types of viewer/listeners.

Those that use, the Beeb, almost exclusively, for "news", concerts, media with "intellectual" content. This will be absorbed mainly via the wireless or by TV. They wont be particularly bothered by watching in standard or HD defininiton video.

I mostly watch the news and I *do* mind that it isn't in HD. It's a step backwards reverting BBC News 24 to SD.

[Arborbridge]

I had a further (rather late) thought about the original point concerning University Challenge. I read somewhere that Samira Ahmed may have been in the frame for the job. Although there's nothing much wrong with the choice made, I would rather have seen her do it. She isn't a gabbler - indeed she speaks very precisely, clearly and rather more slowly, being a radio person - and she brooks no nonsense from people she interviews.

I think she would have answered the brief for me, but too late now as Amol Rajan has the job. Perhaps the OP would have been happier with her as a choice?

If I may be permitted a tiny leg-pull, I notice Rhyd6 seems to think Amol is sloppy of diction, but he also shows his own sloppiness, spelling Amol incorrectly and not being bothered to type University Challenge. Why does everyone say "Uni" these days? We usually had time to pronounce it in full, but nowadays people seem in too much of a rush - including me sometimes. It's infectious.

Feel free to point out any sloppy errors in my own writing

Arb.

[UncleEbenezer]

Why does everyone say "Uni" these days?
Arb.

Well, fancy that.

I confess I too find Rajan's voice grating. Hint of a sneer, or is that just me? I've a dim idea he's constantly reminding me of something: possibly the voice and manner of a school bully or somesuch in my distant past. Which would be a coincidence and not his fault, but that doesn't help.

[Arborbridge]

Why does everyone say "Uni" these days?
Arb.

Well, fancy that.

I confess I too find Rajan's voice grating. Hint of a sneer, or is that just me? I've a dim idea he's constantly reminding me of something: possibly the voice and manner of a school bully or somesuch in my distant past. Which would be a coincidence and not his fault, but that doesn't help.

Well, I've never noticed that. I just thought he had a smile, maybe as though he doesn't take life too seriously.
Is it a secret joke like the Mona Lisa? - a quiet inward humour that we can only guess at - a man of mystery.

Anyhow, I never thought smug or bully or anything else - though I agree he gabbles a bit.

Arb.

[Gerry557]

But the main point I want to respond to is that you think beeb watchers don't care about HD. I certainly come into that category. I have an HD TV but I don't give a fig if a program is broadcast in HD or not. Makes no difference to me. Content is king. Similarly although I love music I couldn't understand why people were more interested in their top of the range Hi Fi equipment than the music they listen to. Although a decent system helps, the quality of the music itself is what matters to me.

Content is king!
I'm a bit confused what you seem to be implying. What you watch is more important than how you watch?

I would have thought it would be a balance also depending on the circumstances. A quick update on the news whilst travelling might be fine on a phone sized screen and it's tinny speakers. Although phone tech can be much better if you are willing to pay more. Music or radio through earphones can also be quite good and I'm sure you will have noticed the difference in quality of some earphones, yet the content is the same.

I think Kate Bush was on the BBC recently. If I were to watch that, expecting that she would be singing, I'd want to watch with my main speakers to get the best sound. The content would be the same on my phone but I'd hardly be able to see it never mind not being able to listen to it. I suppose we often watch together with others so a bigger screen helps.

Whilst I have a decent sound system it isn't great for the gym or running. For the latter I use open earphones so as to allow ambient noise in. It makes the music sound worse but enables me to account for traffic and people around me. Again a balance between tech and content. In fact content is quite subjective, I'm sure some won't like Kate Bush. Note she was number 1 again after Netflix Stranger Things used her song and created a new set of fans.

Another slightly annoying thing with the BBC HD news is that it goes blank when the local news comes on. I assume local news isn't HD compatible. Maybe they could bring back the potters wheel unless they have fixed that issue.

[Arborbridge]

But the main point I want to respond to is that you think beeb watchers don't care about HD. I certainly come into that category. I have an HD TV but I don't give a fig if a program is broadcast in HD or not. Makes no difference to me. Content is king. Similarly although I love music I couldn't understand why people were more interested in their top of the range Hi Fi equipment than the music they listen to. Although a decent system helps, the quality of the music itself is what matters to me.

Content is king!
I'm a bit confused what you seem to be implying. What you watch is more important than how you watch?

I would have thought it would be a balance also depending on the circumstances. A quick update on the news whilst travelling might be fine on a phone sized screen and it's tinny speakers. Although phone tech can be much better if you are willing to pay more. Music or radio through earphones can also be quite good and I'm sure you will have noticed the difference in quality of some earphones, yet the content is the same.

I think Kate Bush was on the BBC recently. If I were to watch that, expecting that she would be singing, I'd want to watch with my main speakers to get the best sound. The content would be the same on my phone but I'd hardly be able to see it never mind not being able to listen to it. I suppose we often watch together with others so a bigger screen helps.

Whilst I have a decent sound system it isn't great for the gym or running. For the latter I use open earphones so as to allow ambient noise in. It makes the music sound worse but enables me to account for traffic and people around me. Again a balance between tech and content. In fact content is quite subjective, I'm sure some won't like Kate Bush. Note she was number 1 again after Netflix Stranger Things used her song and created a new set of fans.

Another slightly annoying thing with the BBC HD news is that it goes blank when the local news comes on. I assume local news isn't HD compatible. Maybe they could bring back the potters wheel unless they have fixed that issue.

I'm more with Clariman on this, though I agree it is a balance. I think he might have been responding to someone who wrote that films were not watchable unless in HD and with surround sound. I don't agree - most old films are not in high quality but they are still worth watching.

I have two sets of channels in my guide on the TV: one group says it's HD the other is, presumably, not. I can't tell the difference (or if there is, I don't notice), except that sometimes one is pixelated or loses signal so I switch to the other.
I couldn't care less, really - as long as it's good enough and I can see what's happening and following the plot.

And I use headphones most of the time.

Arb.

[bluedonkey]

they are just going through the motions.

Isn't that what we all do around breakfast time?

"Going through" implies a level of contact that I, for one, shy away from.

[CliffEdge]

Content is king!
I'm a bit confused what you seem to be implying. What you watch is more important than how you watch?

I would have thought it would be a balance also depending on the circumstances. A quick update on the news whilst travelling might be fine on a phone sized screen and it's tinny speakers. Although phone tech can be much better if you are willing to pay more. Music or radio through earphones can also be quite good and I'm sure you will have noticed the difference in quality of some earphones, yet the content is the same.

I think Kate Bush was on the BBC recently. If I were to watch that, expecting that she would be singing, I'd want to watch with my main speakers to get the best sound. The content would be the same on my phone but I'd hardly be able to see it never mind not being able to listen to it. I suppose we often watch together with others so a bigger screen helps.

Whilst I have a decent sound system it isn't great for the gym or running. For the latter I use open earphones so as to allow ambient noise in. It makes the music sound worse but enables me to account for traffic and people around me. Again a balance between tech and content. In fact content is quite subjective, I'm sure some won't like Kate Bush. Note she was number 1 again after Netflix Stranger Things used her song and created a new set of fans.

Another slightly annoying thing with the BBC HD news is that it goes blank when the local news comes on. I assume local news isn't HD compatible. Maybe they could bring back the potters wheel unless they have fixed that issue.

I'm more with Clariman on this, though I agree it is a balance. I think he might have been responding to someone who wrote that films were not watchable unless in HD and with surround sound. I don't agree - most old films are not in high quality but they are still worth watching.

I have two sets of channels in my guide on the TV: one group says it's HD the other is, presumably, not. I can't tell the difference (or if there is, I don't notice), except that sometimes one is pixelated or loses signal so I switch to the other.
I couldn't care less, really - as long as it's good enough and I can see what's happening and following the plot.

And I use headphones most of the time.

Arb.

There isn't really anything worth watching. There are sometimes films worth watching at the cinema. On silver screen days you get a free cup of coffee.

[AWOL]

One thing about the BBC Radio News that has been chuffing me off recently is the constant news bulletin headline items that simply don't qualify as "news" (in my book).

BBC breakfast news is the worst. Hardly any proper news on it. Endless tedious banter between the presenters and it's obvious they are just going through the motions. Most days there's an over-long touchy-feely story about a charity walk-a-thon or an interview with a Strictly star. Plus way too much sport - which now goes on forever because they have to give equal coverage to women's sport. I don't consider sport to be proper news. It's all very dumbed down and frankly the BBC should be doing better.

Tough luck if you want to know what's happening in the world.

I hate "Breakfast" shows. I want events, facts, and analysis, not two annoying individuals on a couch trying to make the news fun interspersed with "human interest stories". Even Today and PM on Radio 4 try to create a sense of "community" whereas I just want the news and not magazine articles and journalists side projects. However I am a long way away from not watching "live TV" whether by Freesat, Freeview, or streamed even if I channel hop between the news channels to stitch together something more to my tastes with a mix of BBC, France 24, Bloomberg, NBC, and Al'jazeera. If Al Jazeera didn't have an annoying anti-NATO bee in their bonnets I would watch more of it (currently expressed through struggling to put together a panel where everyone doesn't believe that NATO forced Russia into invading Ukraine).

Anyway I for one still need a licence and it remains a cheap source of information and entertainment. BBC World Service, LBC, Times Radio, are all regular listening for me on the radio too. Having alternatives gives the ability to curate a stream of interesting content.

I despise the new TV news channels, GB News and Talk TV. Lots of really nasty opinions that even the right wing tabloids would find unacceptable presented in a cheap and tawdry package.

[didds]

[quote="scrumpyjack" you are liable for the fee if you watch anything live on ANY channel even if it isn't BBC[/quote]


OR record it ...

didds