[michael21]

Do we know how much its going to be

[michael21]

Its £150.50 at the moment

[Calderyon]

No TV license fee here.

[michael21]

Originally Posted by Calderyon

No TV license fee here.

True but you also dont have a football team

[hijaxers]

Originally Posted by michael21

Its £150.50 at the moment

Aww sorry you lost your bet Michael , that fee would have covered that stinkng licence, but i am glad he went . Sorry

[Alf]

UKIP will scrap it.

Vote UKIP

[hijaxers]

Originally Posted by Alf

UKIP will scrap it.

Vote UKIP

I'm pleased i value your opinion Alf and agree it needs scrapping

[michael21]

Originally Posted by hijaxers

Aww sorry you lost your bet Michael , that fee would have covered that stinkng licence, but i am glad he went . Sorry

Its ok as I had

Faroe Islands
Italy
Turkey

Over 1.5 goals £40 and won £92.34 so that cover the loss

@sally

[Maru]

Why is there a license fee for OTA?

[michael21]

Originally Posted by Maru

Why is there a license fee for OTA?

Because of roxanne pallett

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Maru

Why is there a license fee for OTA?

The BBC channels are funded by a fee and don't have commercials or (supposedly) product placement.

Tbqfh that maybe justified it back when we only had 4 or 5 over the air channels so the BBC was half of our TV. These days there are dozens of free to air channels and the BBC makes up like 4 of them, so it's a ridiculous price to ask.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The BBC channels are funded by a fee and don't have commercials or (supposedly) product placement.

Tbqfh that maybe justified it back when we only had 4 or 5 over the air channels so the BBC was half of our TV. These days there are dozens of free to air channels and the BBC makes up like 4 of them, so it's a ridiculous price to ask.

100% agreement from me as to all that.
I detest and begrudge every pence of this absurd fee.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by michael21

Because of roxanne pallett

*forklift*

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The BBC channels are funded by a fee and don't have commercials or (supposedly) product placement.

Tbqfh that maybe justified it back when we only had 4 or 5 over the air channels so the BBC was half of our TV. These days there are dozens of free to air channels and the BBC makes up like 4 of them, so it's a ridiculous price to ask.

Oh, so that includes C4, C5 as well,etc? So all OTA falls under the fee? Is OTA able to reach all of Britain/UK... So I guess the only "cable" (non-local) channels y'all have are abroad?... We have an app on our Firestick with channels and it lists a lot more than those, so I'm guessing y'all have subscriber-only broadcasting as well? But curious if it is all OTA? Which would be really convenient ...

C5 obviously has CMs though?... BBC is understandable if it doesn't have CMs... we have PBS (Channel 8 here) OTA/Public Broadcasting Service, which is the similar, and it's donation/CM supported...

PBS has a lot of BBC content on it actually... that's a major way we were exposed to British media growing up... especially anything new-sy, documentary-related... but we also had period classics/British drama on there as well...

https://www.pbs.org/

I really should watch more Channel 8 than just rely on YT... ._.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The BBC channels are funded by a fee and don't have commercials or (supposedly) product placement.

Tbqfh that maybe justified it back when we only had 4 or 5 over the air channels so the BBC was half of our TV. These days there are dozens of free to air channels and the BBC makes up like 4 of them, so it's a ridiculous price to ask.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

100% agreement from me as to all that.
I detest and begrudge every pence of this absurd fee.

Except it doesn't just go to the TV channels.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Maru

Why is there a license fee for OTA?

The BBC was the first TV channel way back when and is the public broadcast channel for the country, so is "supposed" to be impartial. The license fee also funds public broadcast radio. Many complain about the fee, but it is an important service that it provides that is not subject to the whims of influences like Murdoch

[James]

Originally Posted by Maru

*forklift*



Oh, so that includes C4, C5 as well,etc? So all OTA falls under the fee? Is OTA able to reach all of Britain/UK... So I guess the only "cable" (non-local) channels y'all have are abroad?... We have an app on our Firestick with channels and it lists a lot more than those, so I'm guessing y'all have subscriber-only broadcasting as well? But curious if it is all OTA? Which would be really convenient ...

C5 obviously has CMs though?... BBC is understandable if it doesn't have CMs... we have PBS (Channel 8 here) OTA/Public Broadcasting Service, which is the similar, and it's donation/CM supported...

PBS has a lot of BBC content on it actually... that's a major way we were exposed to British media growing up... especially anything new-sy, documentary-related... but we also had period classics/British drama on there as well...

https://www.pbs.org/

I really should watch more Channel 8 than just rely on YT... ._.

No, the license fee only goes to the BBC - UK-wide and local TV/radio channels and online services. The BBC also has a commercial side that sells programmes internationally, and sells DVDs and magazines.

Channel 4 and 5 make money through commercials. Channel 4 is actually owned by the UK government.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by James

No, the license fee only goes to the BBC - UK-wide and local TV/radio channels and online services. The BBC also has a commercial side that sells programmes internationally, and sells DVDs and magazines.

Channel 4 and 5 make money through commercials. Channel 4 is actually owned by the UK government.

Yeah I know ... my mom had quite a few VHS box sets of BBC shows, etc .. it's actually a really nice to have a broadcaster with quality content like that, it's like little pieces of cultural history ... PBS is similar with iconic shows such as Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street... and Bob Ross Bill Nye, etc... I think Reading Rainbow was on there too, but we mainly watched that at the school library as they had a subscription to it...

As a kid, I didn't really watch political or world history on cable news (maybe for the State of the Union)... I learned a lot about history and science-related through public television... that was just the channel we watched if we actually wanted to know anything about civics... very little rhetoric and more accessible to a young child who didn't really understand what a vast majority of the rhetoric was about... I don't know how BBC compares though... I don't think PBS really a news service in the more traditional sense... though BBC was always seen as very high brow by most Americans back then for actual news-worthy topics...

NHK may be more comparable...

[James]

From what I've heard of PBS it sounds similar but smaller in scale. The BBC is a big corporation, because basically every household (apart from over-75s) in the country has to pay the 150 pounds a year license, so they get 3.7 billion in total from that, and they have an annual 5 billion budget.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-...and-costs-top2 <- reading that I'm surprised you can still get the reduced price black-and-white TV license. Didn't know people still had them.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by James

From what I've heard of PBS it sounds similar but smaller in scale. The BBC is a big corporation, because basically every household (apart from over-75s) in the country has to pay the 150 pounds a year license, so they get 3.7 billion in total from that, and they have an annual 5 billion budget.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-...and-costs-top2 <- reading that I'm surprised you can still get the reduced price black-and-white TV license. Didn't know people still had them.

Oh wow @ B&W ... I guess it is treated similar to a utility? @"pricing" ... my family has one or two B&W TV's lying around.. generally the more portable ones that were B&W in the 90's iirc...

[Redway]

Lucky you’ve got your mum paying it for you.

[Maru]

@James Yeah PBS is much smaller scaled, but I don't necessarily mind that... it represents a little bit too accurately the "importance" we place educational media in our culture just by virtue of voting with a donation... seems the more democratic way to handle that...

I think with the internet, the importance of those providers has actually increased among my generation and how we now treasure the access we did have growing up... during the rise of access to media & information when we saw unprecedented growth in access... for example, in the 90's because we had such access as far as education goes, it changed our attitudes towards the importance of preserving technology that maintains ease of access to that information ... anyway, we're seeing more wider scale implementation of those kinds of things on a smaller scale... for example, YT, there are so many educational channels now, but we still see non-YT-y outfits thrive as the hunger for information and knowledge is so much stronger... that's the internet's most positive use in my eyes...

PBS raises record $55.4 mil
https://variety.com/1999/tv/news/pbs...il-1117493045/

Imo, more liberal ideas (as in liberty/equality), especially topics surrounding ethnic diversity and self-acceptance, exposing kids to it through literature and historical media is the perfect way to break kids out of their mold... PBS in particular is so detached from the content they create... it never felt patronizing and that's what kids really need... is to not feel patronized while trying to discuss culture and new ideas...

The nice thing about growing up in a minority community, I had ample access to ethnic media and culture and it was unashamed... a lot of Mexican celebrations in our school (particularly) since that was the majority, mariachis, we celebrated their holidays, etc... there wasn't really a middle class Nanny culture demographic to appeal to and you could feel it from the administration because they literally could do what they wanted for the kids ... so I don't felt cut off in that respect... anyway, I would place PBS in that box in terms of educational importance, but also the school district had it's own channel or 2... some of the media was prior recordings from public broadcasting (or broadcasters just for school systems internally, etc)... They didn't restrict this access for us as far as discussion either, none of that pussy footing as far as sensitivities... we got told if we said something ourselves insensitive, as we knew, just get over yourself buddy... but it was de-stigmatized quite a bit that we could joke and lobby criticism if there was offense, but it wasn't this ridiculous sideshow that passes for "cultural debate" nowadays... anyway, I think a big part of that obviously was because there was no veneer to hide beneath with the demographics and openness by our school system(s), but also I think too because of networks like PBS that sort of helped to broach these topics at a very early stage of intellectual development... and if the topic was uncomfortable for you, well tough, we're going to discuss it... but yeah racial humor wasn't shied away... in fact, Texas metros are known for it's sh** talking/city slicker-ness ... especially among the minorities of all folk.. we all made jokes and it was pretty clear what was de-stigmatized conversation and what wasn't... particularly anything around economic strife... it wasn't made up on the fly like some of the cultural discussion is now... I don't think it goes deep enough into the skin (not literally speaking) to even matter anymore... anyway, I took Latin American literature when I was in college just to understand what some of my own references are, because I was sheltered for the most part in our little eclectic community...

So anyway, I think that speaks to the "impartial" aspect that bits was mentioning... but I think literature and non-entertainment media is probably one of the most valuable sources outside of de-stigmatization of those rough topics with younger kids... and we had a lot of that just with where we were placed economically... anyway, PBS centered pretty strongly around literature and the arts and that's the best placement for cultural discussions... imo... I think news is good for fast-exchange of information, but not necessarily the best way to learning the ins and outs of very particular topics...
Anyway, would be good to see more things like this...

Student Launches #1000BlackGirlBooks Book Drive for Jamaican School
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/tea...rley-dias.html

‘Marley Dias Gets It Done’ And Empowers Other Students To Get It Done, Too
https://dogoodjamaica.org/marley-dia...t-it-done-too/

'Reading Rainbow' $1M Kickstarter Goal and More Reached in One Day
https://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/read.../29/id/574053/

Reading Rainbow also got a re-launch with their Kickstarter which they raised really quickly... , but not sure how "successful" that has been... I searched it just now and came up with the above link... she also raised the funds for the books for young people in Jamaica...

Anyway sorry to chat everyone's ear off... a lot on my mind today...

Also I just converted £150.50... $194~.... ...

[Vicky.]

I don't pay it anymore. I barely ever watch live TV (when I do its via my laptop so they couldn't really 'catch' me, its only ever BB anyway) and I refuse to fund the BBC while they cover up pedophile stuff and are biased as ****. I did pay it for a long time, after a long time of refusing to. But now? No chance.

Gavin watches a lot of TV but its via netflix so I am sure you don't need to pay it for that anyway? As its not live TV.

They started proper stalking me when I stopped paying, so I sent in a letter telling them I would charge them 50 quid for each time they came to my door. Seems to have worked as they haven't been for about a year

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't pay it anymore. I barely ever watch live TV (when I do its via my laptop so they couldn't really 'catch' me, its only ever BB anyway) and I refuse to fund the BBC while they cover up pedophile stuff and are biased as ****. I did pay it for a long time, after a long time of refusing to. But now? No chance.

I didn't have one for ages but now do because sky+TV licence worked out far cheaper than just BT for fibre optic . Still don't really watch it much . When the year contract is up I'll probably try to pester Sky to give me a cheap deal on just broadband and get rid of TV again. Annoyingly, they won't let you sign up for just broadband in the first place, has to be part of a TV package.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I didn't have one for ages but now do because sky+TV licence worked out far cheaper than just BT for fibre optic . Still don't really watch it much . When the year contract is up I'll probably try to pester Sky to give me a cheap deal on just broadband and get rid of TV again. Annoyingly, they won't let you sign up for just broadband in the first place, has to be part of a TV package.

Yeah I tried that a while back

Sky keep taking my ten/twenty quid that you have to pay when joining, then refunding it a week later and basically saying piss off No idea why and they won't explain to me but..meh. Don't watch TV anyway and the broadband I have now is only like 15 quid a month, where I am sure from memory it was going to be about 40 from sky, as as you say you need a TV package too

[michael21]

I have all sky channels and dont watch bbc

The bbc should just start showing advert time for the govement to act