TV license

[rudebhoy]

That would mean that most media, presenters, actors, musicians etc would not pay towards the BBC as they are freelancers, no PAYE. The rich, not salaried, would also avoid paying.

Hitting PAYE is an easy one but the wealthy tend not to be affected, which doesn't seem quite right. It isn't a simple one to resolve.

Fair point - I guess the point I was trying to make was it should be funded centrally from general taxation revenue.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Fair point - I guess the point I was trying to make was it should be funded centrally from general taxation revenue.

I get that, it's a fair point. It's how you get everyone to pay their share, if you believe that is how it should be done. VAT tends to be an equitable one, as it affects spenders more and they tend to be the ones with money.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I get annoyed sometimes at the way BBC report the news, but if you ignore the News and Question Time etc, you get a helluva lot of good programming for a tenner a month.

Phenomenally good value. I’m a great fan of the Sounds app and listen to a lot of R3 and R6 curated music; drama and old book readings, never mind the archive of great programmes from through the decades. Brilliant.

As far as news and political content - I tend to avoid it much of the time according to what’s in the news, as I get often rather irritated by the BBCs idea of what they have to do to avoid bias and present a balanced viewpoint - even when one side of a discussion or issue is only held by a significant minority or is obvious to most as being absurd.

That said I guess the Reithian concept that the BBC should educate as well as inform means that we have to see and hear some total rubbish and absurdities. We have to understand that ‘other view’. The problems and risk is that some take the rubbish and absurdities as alternative facts or alternative truth - when all it is is another view.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

scrap the licence, totally outdated model. Make it funded on a commercial advertising basis with a contribution from the Treasury to ensure certain elements of their braodcasts such as global news etc are maintained in a similar fashion but not to fund sports presenters

Perhaps unfortunately that route sees us heading towards a Fox-like hell of misinformation and dissembling. No thank you.

 

[PJ87]

Nowt to do with being tight. Sick to death of paying for a service that is political and a "Debbie Downer" as the wife says. I have a much better outlook on life without the BBC spouting their garbage at me.

Is it one sided tho? I know right voters who think it's left leaning and left voters who think it's right leaning

Seems pretty impartial to me

So much good information on the BBC aswell

 

[Lord Tyrion]

So much good information on the BBC aswell

The issue is, imo, that's a subjective statement. You, and others, think there is great stuff on the BBC. Fine, but others don't.

The same can be said about many of the subscription channels but no one is forced into paying for those. If the BBC really is that great then scramble the picture, have people pay a subscription. If the product is that good people will pay for it.

As it happens I watch enough stuff, listen to the radio so I would subscribe but I don't think that people who don't watch the BBC channels or listen to BBC radio should be pushed into paying a licence.

 

[Orikoru]

The issue is, imo, that's a subjective statement. You, and others, think there is great stuff on the BBC. Fine, but others don't.

The same can be said about many of the subscription channels but no one is forced into paying for those. If the BBC really is that great then scramble the picture, have people pay a subscription. If the product is that good people will pay for it.

As it happens I watch enough stuff, listen to the radio so I would subscribe but I don't think that people who don't watch the BBC channels or listen to BBC radio should be pushed into paying a licence.

If it was purely a case of paying a subscription for BBC I absolutely wouldn't bother. It's the fact that the license covers any live TV that means our hands are tied. They have us over a barrel.

 

[Crazyface]

TV wise…hmmmm…so no radio; no iPlayer; no Sounds; no on-line content…nada? Well I might suggest that you are missing out on a lot of brilliant stuff that is nowhere near anything even vaguely political.

Blimey, how do you fit golf in? We play Boom radio and sing along to it. Don't have people spouting theitlr views at me. I have enough of my own thank you.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

If it was purely a case of paying a subscription for BBC I absolutely wouldn't bother. It's the fact that the license covers any live TV that means our hands are tied. They have us over a barrel.

My kids are the same, 20 and 23. They don't watch BBC programmes, don't listen to BBC radio. They have a TV licence where they live but if it went to subscription they wouldn't pay for it. They are very much of the subscription generation and don't understand why they are paying for something they have no interest in.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

My kids are the same, 20 and 23. They don't watch BBC programmes, don't listen to BBC radio. They have a TV licence where they live but if it went to subscription they wouldn't pay for it. They are very much of the subscription generation and don't understand why they are paying for something they have no interest in.

It’s called understanding that many paying not so much can deliver more and greater variety for all. Many of the younger generation understand that concept quite well. They also understand that what suits them, or might not suit them, in the present, can change over time. Who knows…nobody actually.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

It’s called understanding that many paying not so much can deliver more and greater variety for all. Many of the younger generation understand that concept quite well. They also understand that what suits them, or might not suit them, in the present, can change over time. Who knows…nobody actually.

Should they pay for Apple TV even though they have no interest in programmes on there? What about Disney? Should they pay so those channels can produce better shows for the people that do watch them?

 

[PNWokingham]

Perhaps unfortunately that route sees us heading towards a Fox-like hell of misinformation and dissembling. No thank you.

What a complete load of horlicks that has a clear political angle when there was no politics in the proposal. Fact is nobody should be forced to pay for the BBC. I like many things they produce and happy to watch those inbetween adverts just like ITV and Channel 4. I suppose from that you would would think that Channel 4 must be like Fox? And that is laughable. And, as mentioned, a not inconconsiderable amount of money for the suggested model would be from the Treasury to produce the global news element of the service but not to pay overpaid sports presenters or quiz/ chat show hosts that belong on commercial contracts not funded by the mass public, most of whom do not watch or care

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

What a complete load of horlicks that has a clear political angle when there was no politics in the proposal. Fact is nobody should be forced to pay for the BBC. I like many things they produce and happy to watch those inbetween adverts just like ITV and Channel 4. I suppose from that you would would think that Channel 4 must be like Fox? And that is laughable. And, as mentioned, a not inconconsiderable amount of money for the suggested model would be from the Treasury to produce the global news element of the service but not to pay overpaid sports presenters or quiz/ chat show hosts that belong on commercial contracts not funded by the mass public, most of whom do not watch or care

The truth is that the licence fee is essentially a tax. Any discussion of taxes, being governmental and hence political, is banned.

Why is discussion of the licence fee not a banned topic because we can pretty well guess where on the political spectrum anyone sits depending upon whether or not they think the licence fee (and indeed the BBC), being just a tax on us all, is a good thing or not. And by its very nature that’s political.

 

[PNWokingham]

The truth is that the licence fee is essentially a tax. Any discussion of taxes, being governmental and hence political, is banned.

Why is discussion of the licence fee not a banned topic because we can pretty well guess where on the political spectrum anyone sits depending upon whether or not they think the licence fee (and indeed the BBC), being just a tax on us all, is a good thing or not.

It is very easy to leave politics out of this. This is to do with how the BBC is funded and who pays for it. The funding source was set up in a totally different era that is no longer relevant today. There were no real alternatives then. Now there are many.

People should be free to choose where they allocate their hard earned money and many younger, and not so younger, people prefer catch up/ streaming and the BBC offering needs to move in line or die as the obligatory funding model will not be tolerated much more and hopefully is already on borrowed time and will be changed in 2027.

Do they change to pure commercial or a combination of ad-funded free or non-ad subscription, I suspect both, with the former being default and an option to go ad free, just as ITV X do.

How much of their overall funding comes from the taxpayer to continue the deemed "less-commercial/ public policy/news side" is a matter for debate but the BBC as one of many TV offerings will have to stand on its own feet soon. Maybe when set free of their shackles they can bid for Love Island then you can get more of your guilty pleasures in one place!

 

[cliveb]

What a complete load of horlicks that has a clear political angle when there was no politics in the proposal. Fact is nobody should be forced to pay for the BBC. I like many things they produce and happy to watch those inbetween adverts just like ITV and Channel 4. I suppose from that you would would think that Channel 4 must be like Fox? And that is laughable. And, as mentioned, a not inconconsiderable amount of money for the suggested model would be from the Treasury to produce the global news element of the service but not to pay overpaid sports presenters or quiz/ chat show hosts that belong on commercial contracts not funded by the mass public, most of whom do not watch or care

ITV and Channel 4 make some excellent programmes, and they are broadcast in an acceptable manner BECAUSE THEY ARE JUDGED AGAINST THE BBC.
If the BBC wasn't there as a standard to get close to, commercial TV would go down the toilet. You only have to take a look at how TV is broadcast in America to see the danger.

 

[PNWokingham]

ITV and Channel 4 make some excellent programmes, and they are broadcast in an acceptable manner BECAUSE THEY ARE JUDGED AGAINST THE BBC.
If the BBC wasn't there as a standard to get close to, commercial TV would go down the toilet. You only have to take a look at how TV is broadcast in America to see the danger.

Don't agree. Firstly, the same or similar people at BBC would make the same or similar commercial programmes as other broadcasters and that is not just ITV and Channel 4. They are 2 Competitors but you need to bring Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Paramount, HBO etc into the mix. Content and viewing preferences are across all of these and as they all know good TV wins and they all do a lot of that. To compare to US commercial television is irrelevant. Look at how the streaming services have upped their game on wildlife and natural world programmes, how the Nordic dramas have influenced BBC and ITV etc etc. US trash daytime TV is not what most Europeans want. I think most people want the BBC doing similar to what they do now but just not the obligatory "conscription" model. Broadcast TV in itself is what is changing. The "catch-up when you want" model is taking over. And that means content is king. Do good and succeed, and vice versa. So no reason to think the focus on quality for thr BBC will change

 

[Hobbit]

We stream everything. And whilst the boss might be watching Dancing on Ice on the TV in the lounge, I’ll be watching hbo or Netflix elsewhere. The argument about too many ad breaks is rubbish. Neither hbo nor Netflix have ad breaks.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It is very easy to leave politics out of this. This is to do with how the BBC is funded and who pays for it. The funding source was set up in a totally different era that is no longer relevant today. There were no real alternatives then. Now there are many.

People should be free to choose where they allocate their hard earned money and many younger, and not so younger, people prefer catch up/ streaming and the BBC offering needs to move in line or die as the obligatory funding model will not be tolerated much more and hopefully is already on borrowed time and will be changed in 2027.

Do they change to pure commercial or a combination of ad-funded free or non-ad subscription, I suspect both, with the former being default and an option to go ad free, just as ITV X do.

How much of their overall funding comes from the taxpayer to continue the deemed "less-commercial/ public policy/news side" is a matter for debate but the BBC as one of many TV offerings will have to stand on its own feet soon. Maybe when set free of their shackles they can bid for Love Island then you can get more of your guilty pleasures in one place!

Some may think it’s easy because they then don’t need to address one, if not the main, benefit to the wider society of the BBC as it is, and also where the main driver to get rid of the licence fee comes from - and so any discussion that does not address these two things is simply not honest. Buy hey. So be it. I’m out.

 

[Hobbit]

Some may think it’s easy because they then don’t need to address one, if not the main, benefit to the wider society of the BBC as it is, and also where the main driver to get rid of the licence fee comes from - and so any discussion that does not address these two things is simply not honest. Buy hey. So be it.

But there’s countless radio stations from classical right across the spectrum of tastes, all commercial. And there’s countless different tv channels that are commercial. Can the Beeb produce a myriad of different comedy/reality/documentary programmes etc? No, not like they used to. The budget doesn’t stretch that far. And I dare say no single channel can.

It’s trying to cover a myriad of tastes with 2 tv channels and 4 national radio channels. As a PBS it’s actually quite poor in terms of consistently good programmes covering a whole evening when comparing the ability to hop across countless channels to fill every time slot in an evening.

Apart from BBC Breakfast & the 6 o’clock news, the Beeb is very rarely our channel of choice. I’d rather it was sold off, given the opportunity to generate money via ads to produce more quality programmes.

 

[cliveb]

Don't agree. Firstly, the same or similar people at BBC would make the same or similar commercial programmes as other broadcasters and that is not just ITV and Channel 4. They are 2 Competitors but you need to bring Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Paramount, HBO etc into the mix.

Quality of content isn't the issue. It's the manner in which it is delivered.
Traditional broadcast TV allowed us to get everything available through a single "subscription" (the TV licence). And because there's an advert free BBC service, the competitors cannot afford to broadcast their content in a significantly more irritating way. Take away the BBC and there's no standard they have to match.

Hard disk recorders make catch-up, multi-room playback and ad-skipping simple, so convenience is not an issue.

The advent of streaming has fragmented the marketplace. There is now lots of great content scattered around multiple services, and if I want to watch it all I have to pay multiple subscriptions. If I want to stream ITV/C4/C5/etc I have to put up with loads of unskippable adverts or pay yet more subscriptions. And this when there are only a few worthwhile programmes on each platform. In the end we, the consumers, get to pay WAY more than the apparently much hated TV licence.

Let nobody be fooled: the move from broadcast to streaming is fundamentally a way to extract more money from viewers.