Multi-Million/Billionaires Owning Farms
Society & Culture0 min ago
I am old enough to remember when we only had 3 channels, BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV.
I remember when channel 4 started in 1982, I was just 13 years old, but I remember saying to my parents where on earth will we find time to watch another channel, and they agreed with me.
These days its all about choice, we have channels, and catch up tv, streaming coming out of ears, but when you think of all the great content we had sandwiched into just 3 channels, it makes everything seem watered down.
BBC 1 and 2 seem to have lost touch with what viewers want to see, at least it is that way in our household.
And the tv licence is so outdated its unreal.
I don't like the way we are forced by law to own a licence by the BBC when I or we only watch a small percentage of any of the BBC channels.
I used to be a big fan of Radio 2, since they got rid of Steve Wright and Ken Bruce, I have converted to listening to Greatest Hits Radio.
But the same it has to be said has happened to our tv watching, we rarely watch anything from the BBC. I do like some things like The Hit List, The Repair Shop, but not much else.
Isn't it time we scrapped the licence altogether, and make all channels subscription based, so we only pay for what we watch.
For example, we could browse a tv guide, click purchase, and watch that particular program, but only be charged for that program.
Tonnes of channels which must be expencive to broadcast never get watched, they just sit there waiting for someone to tune into them, which in my view is a waste.
No best answer has yet been selected by renegadefm. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.don't watch anything on the bbc anymore, not even the news, i stream everything as there is a plethora of choices if i want to pay to watch or not, if there was a public vote to keep the license fee it would be a no, but some kind of subscription service, it's inevitable really, all the old comedies i have on dvd anyway, cheap to buy these days as no one plays dvd's much anymore, infact i have a wall of dvd's and cd's my fave b/w movies, tv dramas etc.. still have my vinyl records to.
We are all nostalgic for TV we enjoyed years ago, that's human nature.
But the vast choice we are offered today, means that television cannot be anything other than better - the sheer weight of numbers mean that there is literally something for everyone on television today.
The issue of the licence fee is a difficult one.
It does on the one hand mean that the BBC is not under pressure to provide revenue as commercial stations are, which can make them smug and unaccountable.
But on the other hand, it means they can create art and drama that would not otherwise be enjoyed because it is not commercially viable to create and broadcast it.
It's a balancing act, and one I believe the BBC gets right more often than wrong, at least as far as its television output goes.
BBC Radio is another matter, for another debate.
My point was the tv licence was born when the BBC dominated our viewing, and to own a television we have to own a licence, but this is outrageous in my view, especially when in my opinion the BBC doesn't offer any great content anymore, yet it did when we only had 3 channels.
You would have thought with competition around the BBC would have to up their game, but it definitely hasn't worked that way.
Shows like Dukes of Hazzard, Dallas, just to name a few doesn't exist anymore.
Why should we have to pay Sky subscriptions just to have something to watch? Surely that speaks for itself?
We shouldn't have to pay the fortune we currently are via subscriptions, Netflix streaming services, God knows what else, when 3 channels used to happily entertain the country far better than it does today.
I know I am old school, but I am only 54, yet I crave old style shows like This is your life, The Generation game, Top of the pops etc etc.
And we can't say these shows are poor because they are constantly being repeated, so why would they still be repeated if the companys didn't think they were any good?
Theres lots of reasons to harp back at how great the past was, but I hate my arm being forced into paying for a tv licence just purely because I own a television, its ridiculous.
A television only recieves it doesn't transmit, so why are we paying for that?
To put it another way I might only watch DVD'S on it, whats that got to do with the BBC?
If tv is so great today, why then do we have dedicated channels of repeats which repeat all the old classics from yesteryear?
And those shows they are repeating came from an era when we only had 2 or 3 channels.
I was chatting to my parents about all this last night, and they remember when ITV started in 1955, and they thought the quality of content started to slip even then. Quite surprising to hear them say that as we still had a black and white television until the early 80's, if I wanted to watch The Dukes of Hazzard in colour I had to watch it at my Grans.
Dad's policy was if its still working why replace it. Such a shame more people don't adopt that policy today, as all too often we replace things long before they take a natural death, but thats the way technology forces us into it sometimes, like for example the BBC have just dissolved all their SD channels on the older satellite equipment. Another classic case of some people have been forced to ditch their perfectly working equipment for new.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.