BBC licence fee to be reviewed by Conservatives

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Give it a rest and pay the fee old chap; they'll come for you in the end

'Call the Midwife's' is on Xmas and you'll love that, worth the licence fee by itself !

OB has no real understanding of the licence fee and all its services and value it brings to millions in this country.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

OB has no real understanding of the licence fee and all its services and value it brings to millions in this country.

Of course I do, and I, for one, will be happy to pay for them into the future. But I will defend to the hilt the idea that those not benefiting from BBC services should not have to pay for them.

---------- Post added at 09:39 ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Give it a rest and pay the fee old chap; they'll come for you in the end

'Call the Midwife's' is on Xmas and you'll love that, worth the licence fee by itself !

Seriously I don't get it that people moan about £150 a year to the Beeb for quality content, when they pay around £1000 a year to Sky/VM for hundreds of channels of crap.

I hate 'Call the Midwife, man!

But I don't hate the BBC, even though I think it wastes too much money. I enjoy many of their programmes and I am personally not resenting paying for it. But that is my choice.

You have to face facts. Sky may cost a lot more, but if that's what you want to watch, that should be your choice.

It is a democracy, is it not?

[adzii_nufc]

Seriously I don't get it that people moan about £150 a year to the Beeb for quality content, when they pay around £1000 a year to Sky/VM for hundreds of channels of crap.

Because a majority now aren't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44862598

Nearly 40% of UK households now subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime or Now TV. The 15.4 million subscriptions have now passed the 15.1 million who pay for Sky, BT, Virgin and other satellite/cable providers.

With the exception of Now TV, Netflix and Amazon are running riot, producing original content at a much faster rate than the BBC.

So we'll do the BBC's £150 a year to Netflix's £143 (Most expensive tier) and Amazon's £80-£40 if you're a student. For the sake of the hundreds of channels of crap argument we'll tally in IMDB's top list with 100,000 votes or more, this tends to be an up to date list, we're not comparing stuff made 30 years ago. They're voting on how good it is, not how much its worth.

BBC - 4 original shows listed from 133
Amazon - 3 Original shows listed + 3 rated shows available.
Netflix - 14 Original shows listed + 16 rated shows listed. Region locked shows excluded. The Witcher excluded.

So not only are they outproducing, they're also by opinion higher rated.

Basing the licence fee on argument on BBC vs Sky in 2019 is silly, It's very much Streaming Services vs Live services with the mixture of the two, You can have your streaming services but need a TV licence to flick through freeview even if you don't touch the BBC, There's still going to be some form of live viewing. As suggested, let people vote with their wallet. Shouldn't have a problem keeping the cash rolling in from the UK public if given the choice? Except it's very clear where they'll put the cash. As said before, I'd bail out, I'm paying the BBC to watch Live football and boxing, none of which they actually show. We're in a completely new era of content now and how it's delivered, watching live television is declining, a generation is fading away and we're well into the IPTV-On demand generation. Probably worth adding that iPlayer gets a thrashing by both Netflix and Amazon in the UK.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

Because a majority now aren't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44862598



With the exception of Now TV, Netflix and Amazon are running riot, producing original content at a much faster rate than the BBC.

So we'll do the BBC's £150 a year to Netflix's £143 (Most expensive tier) and Amazon's £80-£40 if you're a student. For the sake of the hundreds of channels of crap argument we'll tally in IMDB's top list with 100,000 votes or more, this tends to be an up to date list, we're not comparing stuff made 30 years ago. They're voting on how good it is, not how much its worth.

BBC - 4 original shows listed from 133
Amazon - 3 Original shows listed + 3 rated shows available.
Netflix - 14 Original shows listed + 16 rated shows listed. Region locked shows excluded. The Witcher excluded.

So not only are they outproducing, they're also by opinion higher rated.

Basing the licence fee on argument on BBC vs Sky in 2019 is silly, It's very much Streaming Services vs Live services with the mixture of the two, You can have your streaming services but need a TV licence to flick through freeview even if you don't touch the BBC, There's still going to be some form of live viewing. As suggested, let people vote with their wallet. Shouldn't have a problem keeping the cash rolling in from the UK public if given the choice? Except it's very clear where they'll put the cash. As said before, I'd bail out, I'm paying the BBC to watch Live football and boxing, none of which they actually show. We're in a completely new era of content now and how it's delivered, watching live television is declining, a generation is fading away and we're well into the IPTV-On demand generation. Probably worth adding that iPlayer gets a thrashing by both Netflix and Amazon in the UK.

The problem with the BBC iPlayer is that everything on there (apart from the live streaming) has been shown already. Most people want original programming, whereas the iPlayer is a glorified catch-up service.

---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

OB has no real understanding of the licence fee and all its services and value it brings to millions in this country.

So if I disagree with you, Den, it's because I don't understand?

Anyone would think I was suggesting that the BBC was abolished. I am not. I am simply saying that if you don't watch the Beeb's channels, the iPlayer, radio and also do not make use of their website, you should not have to pay for it.

This should not be so controversial - it should be common sense. We no longer live in the mid-20th century.

[adzii_nufc]

Assuming the fee was scrapped. It doesn't have to be doom. The future could lie with Britbox. You ramp up the investment, make originals exclusive to the platform with X amount of British broadcasters on board and those that felt the TV licence was of great value will buy in and those of us that judge the content to be worthy will buy in.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

Assuming the fee was scrapped. It doesn't have to be doom. The future could lie with Britbox. You ramp up the investment, make originals exclusive to the platform with X amount of British broadcasters on board and those that felt the TV licence was of great value will buy in and those of us that judge the content to be worthy will buy in.

What about programmes like Countryfile or Gardeners World, or natural history programmes. Highly valued by some but they don't have massive viewing figures. They would disappear under this new regime and the BBC would just become.like Sky/Amazon, if it doesn't attract advertisers/subscribers, it doesn't get made. It's funding model means it makes programmes others don't.

Originally Posted by Mr K

What about programmes like Countryfile or Gardeners World, or natural history programmes. Highly valued by some but they don't have massive viewing figures. They would disappear under this new regime and the BBC would just become.like Sky/Amazon, if it doesn't attract advertisers/subscribers, it doesn't get made. It's funding model means it makes programmes others don't.

Originally Posted by Mr K

What about programmes like Countryfile or Gardeners World, or natural history programmes. Highly valued by some but they don't have massive viewing figures. They would disappear under this new regime and the BBC would just become.like Sky/Amazon, if it doesn't attract advertisers/subscribers, it doesn't get made. It's funding model means it makes programmes others don't.

This is why public funding of public service broadcasting isn’t going to go away, even if we move away from the current model. In the long term I think all the PSBs will probably be able to bid for public funds to make programmes that fulfil certain criteria.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mr K

What about programmes like Countryfile or Gardeners World, or natural history programmes. Highly valued by some but they don't have massive viewing figures. They would disappear under this new regime and the BBC would just become.like Sky/Amazon, if it doesn't attract advertisers/subscribers, it doesn't get made. It's funding model means it makes programmes others don't.

So once again you are ruling for the minority to affect the majority. Countryfile - why wouldn't the NFU fund it? Same with Gardeners world and the Horticultural society?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by pip08456

So once again you are ruling for the minority to affect the majority. Countryfile - why wouldn't the NFU fund it? Same with Gardeners world and the Horticultural society?

You've totally missed the point old chap about quality/value versus viewing figures.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by Mr K

You've totally missed the point old chap about quality/value versus viewing figures.

If the quality/value is so good why aren't the viewing figures higher?

Originally Posted by Julian

If the quality/value is so good why aren't the viewing figures higher?

Certain shows are designed for niche audiences and have something of a ceiling to their potential audience. The licence fee system allows such programming to be made at all, and more than that, to be made at a comparable quality to material that attracts far larger audiences.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Certain shows are designed for niche audiences and have something of a ceiling to their potential audience. The licence fee system allows such programming to be made at all, and more than that, to be made at a comparable quality to material that attracts far larger audiences.

None of this has to stop if the BBC was subscription based.

[SnoopZ]

No one should be forced to pay the fee if they don't use the services, it is ridiculous.

Image if we also had to pay a Sky fee even if we didn't use their content?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

No one should be forced to pay the fee if they don't use the services, it is ridiculous.

Image if we also had to pay a Sky fee even if we didn't use their content?

In a way you do pay the BBC for Sky content. If you watch a Sky program live lets say Sky sports then by the rules of the BBC tax you must pay the BBC it's Tax.