Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35963485)

The Director General of the BBC is trying to make a case for an increase to the licence fee. This, I think, is the wrong approach.

What the DG should be doing is making a case for the licence fee to be scrapped, with a subscription at the existing rate maintained for its existing TV and radio channels and the i-Player.

Then it should make a case to the Government to provide additional premium material at an additional cost, either with one or more premium channels broadcast by traditional linear means and/or by the establishment of a new streaming service.

That would be a much better solution than just putting up the outdated licence fee that poorer members of society would find difficult to pay.

https://www.rapidtvnews.com/20180918...#axzz5RTMUzQGs

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35963488)

Cobblers as usual OB !

The fee was frozen for years. Then the Govt. made the BBC pay for the rich Tory pensioners licences - instead it needs to be free/subsidised for those on Income Support.

Scrap the fee and it would just become another commercial channel producing little new or original. At £12 a month for mostly original content its a bargain, compared to VM/Sky subscriptions. I would gladly sell my kidneys to save the BBC (well maybe just the one ;))

Originally Posted by Skie (Post 35963499)

If I could opt-out of paying for the Tory supporting news I'd jump at the chance.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35963498)

I don't see the point of spending £12pm for something I never watch. I don't mind paying a subscription for something I do or will watch.

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 35963486)

The problem with the subscription option for the BBC is that to that you'll then have to put the BBC content behind some form of broadcast restriction for it to work. I wouldn't even know how you'd do that for radio.

So potentially you could end up with ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 on Freeview, but the BBC channels not.

So to turn the BBC into a subscription service would require a complete rethink of the PSB channels in the UK, what is 'free to view' and how.

It's also not only the BBC that gets funding from the licence fee - S4C is due to get all of it's funding from it shortly https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-43569372

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35963516)

Originally Posted by Skie (Post 35963499)

If I could opt-out of paying for the Tory supporting news I'd jump at the chance.

Originally Posted by Skie (Post 35963499)

If I could opt-out of paying for the Tory supporting news I'd jump at the chance.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35963519)

You must watch a different BBC news to me.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35963520)

Or you’re both watching the same programme, and it’s your viewpoint that interprets what’s being shown...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35963500)

No, it's not 'cobblers', Mr K. Whether the licence fee has been frozen for a few years or not, the common complaint is that it's inefficient and expensive. Another is that whether or not you watch BBC TV or radio programmes, you still have to pay for it.

I am not suggesting the BBC should show commercials. I said the licence fee should be scrapped in favour of a subscription at the same price, and the income should be topped up and the current level surpassed with a premium channel and/or streaming services for a separate additional subscription.

Your kidneys are safe with me. :D

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------



Tories are right wing, not left wing, Skie. You got that a bit muddled! :D

---------- Post added at 18:49 ---------- Previous post was at 18:48 ----------



Agreed. It's simply an unjust arrangement.

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------



I agree that public service broadcasting needs to be re-thought. However, if ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are all free to view on Freeview but BBC is on subscription only, I don't see that as a problem if some people don't want to pay for it. If they don't watch it now anyway, the outcome is no different.

We have been told that in the medium term, all the terrestrial TV channels will be delivered over the internet - you will no longer be able to receive channels through an aerial. I presume that radio will go the same way, and therefore it will be possible to block TV and radio stations from non-subscribers.

If the Government of the day wants to pay any broadcaster to schedule in public service broadcasting, it would still be able to pay them for doing so. So S4C and local programming would still be safe.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35963526)

Indeed, the BBC gets as many complaints about being biased to the left as they do to the right, which shows me that they have the right balance.

---------- Post added at 21:06 ---------- Previous post was at 20:56 ----------



This would mean that those who don't watch any type of TV at all would end up paying for the BBC through general taxation.

The reason why the TVL was set up in the way it is was to ensure that the BBC remained independent from the Government of the day.

Shifting the cost of paying for the free TV licences for the over 75's from the DWP to the BBC was a sly move as the BBC will get the blame for any cutbacks. It's the same principle as them cutting the Revenue Support Grants to local authorities, it's the councils who then get the blame when Council Tax Bills increase whilst services are reduced.

Having said that, I do think that the free TV licence schemes should be reformed. It's ridiculous that a millionaire pensioner doesn't pay whilst a younger person on benefits has to, or that a working family on decent wages can stick the TVL into an elderly persons name who lives with them so that they can all enjoy the benefit of a free TVL.