Re: Funding of the BBC
 

That is not an appropriate comparison. We all benefit from education of the population. We are talking about entertainment, Chris, for heaven's sake!

8 years, 10 years...plenty of time to prepare for a subscription based model. You must move very slowly in your house! It really isn't rocket science. To ease the way, the government could guarantee to supplement any loss of income for, say, the first five years, to help the BBC to adjust to the new arrangements, with the benefit then of knowing how much they are bringi g in by way of the new method.

With the freedom from government control (such as that ridiculous Ofcom decision to severely limit what can appear on the i-Player) and the ability to create new premium offerings as well as tapping into the global market more comprehensively, the difference between what they currently earn via the licence fee and what they would get from subscriptions if they made no changes would soon be plugged.

---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

If you think I have a blinkered approach, how do you explain the fact that you cannot (or don't want) to see the inherent unfairness this is to those who do not watch or listen to BBC programmes? That is a very good example of being blinkered, surely?

It is selfish to expect others who do not benefit from it to pay for a non-essential service that you like to receive.

---------- Post added at 10:54 ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 ----------

It's entertainment, Den, not a blood transfusion service!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Its way over the top and just ridiculous, i mean the BBC doesn't do anything for me, and if you had to pay £12 for my house bills i am sure you would feel the same way.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Of course, because there’s nothing else on the BBC apart from entertainment, its research and development departments have never contributed anything to the industry in general, and the market it has created for innovative, independent production companies to produce their - quelle horreur - entertainment output in no way benefits the British economy, nor does it help the U.K. to punch far above its weight in international TV and film production expertise. :dozey:

It appears you are some considerable distance from actually understanding the issues here.

As I already said: the TV licence is not a mandatory subscription. It is a tax, which ensures that quality services are available to all. You own a house, you pay council tax. You use broadcast tv services, you pay for a tv licence. As Hugh so eloquently put it the other day, comparing the TV licence to a Netflix subscription is like comparing apples and hedgehogs. They don’t serve the same purpose, and you can’t simply transpose one business funding model onto another corporation with radically different aims and objectives.

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

If you consume British-made TV content in any form, from any vendor in the U.K., then the BBC has done something for you, whether you actually tune your TV to the BBC or not. It really is as simple as that.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I disagree but i am happy to send £12 of my monthly bills to you guys if you like.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

It's not about how wonderfully fluffy the BBC is and what great content it provides. This is about people who just want a fair, simple choice / option to be able to opt out of its service without having to get rid of their existing services and devices that are able to view the BBC's unwanted content.

As I've said before, if the BBC means so much to so many, then going PPV wouldn't be that much of a big deal, as I'm sure the money would carry on flooding in to such a wonderfully fluffy corporation.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

100% correct, if someone said they had to pay a Sky subscription whether they wanted it or not everyone would be up in arms, which is the exact same thing.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Pay Per View? For every single programme? :confused:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

PPV as in a monthly fee or annual charge like Netflix or Amazon Prime Video.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

As you well know, the vast majority of this money goes to the BBC, and so whatever you may choose to call it, the TV licence is a mandatory subscription.

If the government wants to contribute to the broadcasting industry, it could do so directly rather than through the BBC.

I respect your view that the present system works for everyone, but I disagree with you profoundly and don't buy these arguments at all. As I said, the way the BBC is obliged to operate at the moment is preventing the Corporation from making the necessary changes the public wants and will soon come to expect.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

What changes?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The BBC gets its freedom, which will enable it to generate more income. People have the choice of whether or not to subscribe to the BBC. Taxpayers pay much less to supporting the broadcast industry and for public service provision.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

You said I asked "what changes", and your reply doesn't match your first statement.

Where is your evidence that the public want the BBC to change its funding model, as this is what you are saying the public wants?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Your wild claims that the public wants change and will soon come to expect it does not stand up to any scrutiny at all OB..

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...m-regulate-bbc

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Sorry, but your reply was too brief to be clear about the question you were asking.

I was specifically referring to the Ofcom decision not to allow the BBC to keep more shows on the i-Player for more than 30 days.There appears to be public demand for that, but Ofcom are concerned about the implications of that in terms of unfair competition. That would not be a problem if the BBC could operate more as a commercial company.

We might get a lot less political correctness as well if the BBC were not controlled so much by government.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:51 ----------

Of course the public want change. They want an i-Player that competes with the internet, and that is also what the BBC is striving for.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018...-34-year-olds/

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

So what it actually comes down to is your usual hobby horse .... the apparently imminent replacement of broadcast TV with on demand streaming services.

Ofcom is using regulations to force the BBC to lag behind commercial rivals, to prevent it using its massive financial muscle to dictate the whole marketplace, and as a result streaming services are developing more slowly in the U.K. than you would like.