Do We Expect Too Much For Free / Would You Pay More for the BBC

[GB72]

This has been inspired by Mike’s comments on the Open thread but the simple question is, do we expect too much for very little.
Sport has changed. It is now a multi billion pound global industry with huge costs to put on events, pay players, pay prize money and to produce the sort of high tech coverage that we now expect.
TV has changed. Gone are the cheaply produced series with cardboard sets, replaced by multi million pound blockbuster series with production values equal to the cinema.
News has changed. No twice a night updates, it is now a 24 hour, global industry with huge associated costs.
All of this is now expensive and yet we expect it all on our TV as well as online and on the radio for the cost of a licence fee.
Is it time to consign the BBC to the cottage industry that it is becoming and expect to pay for premium broadcasters for what we want to watch. Is it time to fund the BBC in a different way and allow some advertising to bolster revenues or is it time to start charging £400 or more for a licence every year and let the BBC compete on a more level playing field with the likes of Sky.
Interested to see how people feel based on the changing face of broadcast media and whether you would pay substantially more for the BBC to allow it greater purchasing power bearing in mind that this could then make it unaffordable for many people.

 

[Norrin Radd]

the beeb can charge what they like as far as im concerned ,with the proviso that i dont have to pay it if i dont watch bbc progs.if i didnt have sky i wouldnt have to pay for it so why pay a bloody licence when i dont watch bbc progs.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Happy for them to charge more as I think it is great value and it has shaped our nation for the good. But I'd not want the money spent on chasing sports rights as they are not value for money, and you are just giving extremely rich sportspeople and their hangers on even more money. Would much rather it be invested into quality drama, comedy, radio, BBC 4, etc etc. Just concentrate on what they do well.

 

[chrisd]

We, the licence payer (plus overseas sales) fund the BBC, so unless they are making an annual loss they are able to make all the programmes they do for their income. They also spend shed loads of money inappropriately if you believe the stories, but, if we want football, golf etc etc on terrestrial tv we would need to pay more for the licence so that they can compete with Sky and BT etc better

 

[MegaSteve]

Perhaps a multi level licence fee is worthy of consideration...

Basic, film, sports etc etc...

Also, amazing the number that access BBC content thru' other platforms feel they shouldn't contribute by way of a licence fee...

And, why when Murd the turd said jump Georgie Boy responded how high?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I would pay more for the license fee if it meant more sport was on BBC

 

[Alex1975]

Get rid of the license fee and make the thing commercial...

 

[MarkE]

^^^^^^This. It's an outdated concept not fit for purpose. Make them compete for their funding like every other broadcaster.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Advertising and take the TV part of the BBC and make it fund itself.
Even if you don't watch BBC it is illegal not to have a TV Licence, how much is spent on detector vans and taking people to court.

May it go the way of ITV etc

Totally wrong in this day and age we have a Licence Fee, it was introduced after WW2 so people were licensed to receive TV and Radio signal. With modern technology it's archaic and out of touch with communication possibilities.

 

[Papas1982]

I would pay more for the license fee if it meant more sport was on BBC

How much more would you he happy paying?

What about the millions of people that couldn't care less about sport that then have to pay over the top to subsidise sports shows?

For me, I'm not happy paying the money I do already as I don't listen to any bbc radio stations, and the bbc probably accounts for 5% of my to viewing. But I accept I have to pay it as its a small amount.

Double it to £25 a month or more, which it would realistically need to do and I think people would suddenly be up in arms about it.

 

[patricks148]

How much more would you he happy paying?

What about the millions of people that couldn't care less about sport that then have to pay over the top to subsidise sports shows?

For me, I'm not happy paying the money I do already as I don't listen to any bbc radio stations, and the bbc probably accounts for 5% of my to viewing. But I accept I have to pay it as its a small amount.

Double it to £25 a month or more, which it would realistically need to do and I think people would suddenly be up in arms about it.

All very good points.

My wife isn't interested i sport and get narked that there are sports on all channels like the other week when Wimbledon and the Euro's were on.

Times have changed and we should prob pay for what we want to watch.

 

[Hacker Khan]

^^^^^^This. It's an outdated concept not fit for purpose. Make them compete for their funding like every other broadcaster.

But then as soon as you take advertising you are compromised to produce content to satisfy the sponsor as opposed to the viewer or listener. Which means taking fewer risks and less distinctive programming. The fact that the BBC is free of advertising for me makes it special. Just about everyone I know in the US wishes they had a version in the US. We already have plenty of TV commercial channels, we don't need another one. IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

But then as soon as you take advertising you are compromised to produce content to satisfy the sponsor as opposed to the viewer or listener. Which means taking fewer risks and less distinctive programming. The fact that the BBC is free of advertising for me makes it special. Just about everyone I know in the US wishes they had a version in the US. We already have plenty of TV commercial channels, we don't need another one. IMHO.

Channel 4, ITV etc seem to do ok without being compromised, the BBC is continually accussed of bias now!

We allow Camelot to advertise every week via the National Lottery, that's encouraging gambling on BBC.

 

[Crow]

But I don't want all the bells and whistles associated with big budget sports coverage, much of what's shown nowadays appears to be CGI.

Give me a decent, knowledgeable commentator or two and a number of well placed cameras (and if it's for golf a couple of roving cameras on the course) and the drama can be more than adequately conveyed.
In this way there's no need to pay stupid prices for Sky or Pay-to-View.

But then I'm an Old Fart and proud of it.

 

[MegaSteve]

It's a tax... How many other taxes should we be able to opt out of?

Many of my mates never had kids... Can they have a refund as the state have not had the cost of providing 'services' for them?

 

[njrose51]

If I could, I would switch off all the BBC channels. I hardly ever watch them. There are a few documentaries on BBC4 but wouldn't miss them and I can see the news elsewhere. Not a great fan of watching sport of TV either.

I do feel that the TV license is a bit unfair in this day and age and there should be more options. But what those options would be is a mind field. I fear the current system is here to stay.

 

[MarkE]

But then as soon as you take advertising you are compromised to produce content to satisfy the sponsor as opposed to the viewer or listener. Which means taking fewer risks and less distinctive programming. The fact that the BBC is free of advertising for me makes it special. Just about everyone I know in the US wishes they had a version in the US. We already have plenty of TV commercial channels, we don't need another one. IMHO.

Other broadcasters seem to be able to make distinctive programs. Certainly no worse than the BBC. The BBC make plenty of niche programs that the majority have little interest in and panel shows filled with comedians earning silly amounts of money.
At the end of the day it comes down to choice. Being forced to fund the BBC is what's wrong. How many people, given the choice would ditch the BBC if it meant no licence fee? A large portion of the public I would imagine.

 

[MarkE]

It's a tax... How many other taxes should we be able to opt out of?

Many of my mates never had kids... Can they have a refund as the state have not had the cost of providing 'services' for them?

No it's not. You only pay tax to a government. Last time i checked the BBC was not part of HMRC.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Other broadcasters seem to be able to make distinctive programs. Certainly no worse than the BBC. The BBC make plenty of niche programs that the majority have little interest in and panel shows filled with comedians earning silly amounts of money.
At the end of the day it comes down to choice. Being forced to fund the BBC is what's wrong. How many people, given the choice would ditch the BBC if it meant no licence fee? A large portion of the public I would imagine.

I don't think a large proportion would at all - the majority of people in the country watch BBC or listen etc throughout the year - their programs reach 20 million viewers for some of them

Eastenders for example is one of the two most popular programs on the telly - more watch that that on a daily basis than all other programs - the BBC is popular

I think there must be nearly double that watch that one program compared to who has Sky ( think they are around 10 mil customers )

The BBC is popular - their radio shows are popular but they have in recent years suffered from budget costs which has meant a cull on paying big wages to some presenters and some programs being lost

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The issue is we have no choice. If we did have one many would not pay and the BBC would collapse from the form we know it now. How many, who knows but that choice is not available. In the modern era that is out of step.