Funding of the BBC

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They do in terms of breadth of services, Hugh, I agree, but Netflix provides much more excellent scripted content.

To be clear, I would still pay for the BBC if it scrapped the licence fee in favour of a subscription, and I think most households would do the same. But the Beeb would be much more accountable to its subscribers, much more careful with how it spends its money and would no longer charge people who didn't watch its output. What's more, the Government would interfere less than it does now and the BBC could pursue its on demand ventures to its heart's content without being slapped down by Ofcom.

I think a subscription based service has benefits to all, actually.

And there’s the flaw in your proposition- "you think".

I would rather the dismantling of a world-reknowned organisation, admired and respected by many other countries, was based on pragmatic fact-based information, rather than "feels".

No business should, or would, change it’s funding model based on ‘think", rather than "know"...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And there’s the flaw in your proposition- "you think".

I would rather the dismantling of a world-reknowned organisation, admired and respected by many other countries, was based on pragmatic fact-based information, rather than "feels".

No business should, or would, change it’s funding model based on ‘think", rather than "know"...

How would anyone 'know' until a subscription BBC became a reality? This constant quest for 'proof' that something will happen in the future is rather amusing, because one cannot know until we get there.

And yet those who say something won't happen appear not to believe they need to offer any 'proof' at all.

Very curious.

And if the subscription model didn’t work?

Oops?

No business changes its funding model without in depth market research, due diligence, and impact & risk assessments - not just "let’s try it, what’s the worst that could happen?".

As per usual, this topic is getting stuck on the “the BBC should go subscription because that’s a bit like the licence fee innit” nonsense.

As has been said many times before, public service broadcasting in the U.K., with the single exception of the BBC, operates on a free-to-view, advertising-supported model. This is the model that is proven to work for a broadcaster that requires universal, or near-universal availability in British homes. In the event that the licence fee is ended at the next charter review, that is the model the BBC will adopt.

(But the licence won’t be terminated at the next review - that wouldn’t give them time to prepare. If things were going to change, they terms of the next royal charter would likely specify that they would occur at some point within the next charter period, so that would be the second half of the 2020s at the earliest. *If* Parliament decided to end the TV licence. Which I still don’t think it will.)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

As per usual, this topic is getting stuck on the “the BBC should go subscription because that’s a bit like the licence fee innit” nonsense.

As has been said many times before, public service broadcasting in the U.K., with the single exception of the BBC, operates on a free-to-view, advertising-supported model. This is the model that is proven to work for a broadcaster that requires universal, or near-universal availability in British homes. In the event that the licence fee is ended at the next charter review, that is the model the BBC will adopt.

(But the licence won’t be terminated at the next review - that wouldn’t give them time to prepare. If things were going to change, they terms of the next royal charter would likely specify that they would occur at some point within the next charter period, so that would be the second half of the 2020s at the earliest. *If* Parliament decided to end the TV licence. Which I still don’t think it will.)

Except that they have plenty of time to prepare. It was a consideration this time around, remember? Do you seriously think 10 years + is not enough time to prepare?

I note you have not commented on the unfairness of having people pay for a service they don't use. How bizarre!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except that they have plenty of time to prepare. It was a consideration this time around, remember? Do you seriously think 10 years + is not enough time to prepare?

I note you have not commented on the unfairness of having people pay for a service they don't use. How bizarre!

Its only unfair to those who can't see through their own very selfish insular vision the great scope and breadth of content that the BBC does whether its TV, online , Radio , etc , etc , etc.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by denphone

Its only unfair to those who can't see through their own very selfish insular vision the great scope and breadth of content that the BBC does whether its TV, online , Radio , etc , etc , etc.

How is it selfish not to want to pay for something you don't use. I keep seeing what great value the BBC is at just £12 per month, how is it great value if you never watch it, I watch about 12 hours tv per month, never the BBC, explain how I'm getting great value for money, I can see how others are though due to their viewing being subsidised by mugs like me

---------- Post added at 08:16 ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, when Netflix or Amazon provide 10 national radio stations, 40 local radio stations, a World News service, and an extensive website with news, educational, and factual information, that would be a valid comparison.

Until then you’re comparing apples with hedgehogs.

You heard any of those local radio stations recently, no thought not, no one has and how many are putting out unique livr content all day?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

How is it selfish not to want to pay for something you don't use. I keep seeing what great value the BBC is at just £12 per month, how is it great value if you never watch it, I watch about 12 hours tv per month, never the BBC, explain how I'm getting great value for money, I can see how others are though due to their viewing being subsidised by mugs like me

Well if you could miss those 12 hours TV a month, you wouldn't need to pay a licence fee. ?
As mentioned the BBC isn't just TV; and a lot of paid for cable channels are repeating BBC output. If nothing new is made we'd soon get bored. There's some great new drama this Christmas, and it's mostly on the BBC. Every other channel is 95% repeats.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You heard any of those local radio stations recently, no thought not, no one has and how many are putting out unique livr content all day?

I don't actually know the numbers but quite a few people do listen to BBC Local Radio. It's an underappreciated part of the BBC's output since it's often where the public service aspect is strong, covering local stories and events which would otherwise go ignored by a wider population. I think this is more pronounced outside of London where the media tends to have less of a natural interest.

And yes they do tend to do a lot of unique content. Here is Cumbria's schedule: https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl79#on-now

Most of it is live and unique other than the early hours where they fall back to Radio 5 Live.

This is in contrast to the media landscape in the United States where theoretically there would be larger audiences for local content but in reality most local stations are owned by major media companies and play syndicated national radio shows to save money.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Well if you could miss those 12 hours TV a month, you wouldn't need to pay a licence fee. ?
As mentioned the BBC isn't just TV; and a lot of paid for cable channels are repeating BBC output. If nothing new is made we'd soon get bored. There's some great new drama this Christmas, and it's mostly on the BBC. Every other channel is 95% repeats.

There's talk of a digital license where a little thing like not having a telly won't protect you from having to pay that notwithstanding I'm not getting value and neither are many, many others and whilst we are at it why are we subsidising mps tv viewing

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't actually know the numbers but quite a few people do listen to BBC Local Radio. It's an underappreciated part of the BBC's output since it's often where the public service aspect is strong, covering local stories and events which would otherwise go ignored by a wider population. I think this is more pronounced outside of London where the media tends to have less of a natural interest.

And yes they do tend to do a lot of unique content. Here is Cumbria's schedule: https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl79#on-now

Most of it is live and unique other than the early hours where they fall back to Radio 5 Live.

This is in contrast to the media landscape in the United States where theoretically there would be larger audiences for local content but in reality most local stations are owned by major media companies and play syndicated national radio shows to save money.

It's literally a few people listening and falling all the time

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by denphone

Its only unfair to those who can't see through their own very selfish insular vision the great scope and breadth of content that the BBC does whether its TV, online , Radio , etc , etc , etc.

So you're calling me selfish just because i don't want to pay the License Fee, as i don't watch BBC TV or Listen to Radio, i have more important things to spend that £12 on which i would then get a choice to do, that comment is just ridiculous............... Thanks Den!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except that they have plenty of time to prepare. It was a consideration this time around, remember? Do you seriously think 10 years + is not enough time to prepare?

I note you have not commented on the unfairness of having people pay for a service they don't use. How bizarre!

The TV licence is not a BBC subscription. It is, in effect, a tax on the consumption of broadcast TV. The proceeds of this effective tax are mostly, but not entirely, used to fund the BBC’s freely available TV, radio and internet services. This continues to be justified in law in precisely the same way other public services are. Their availability is what you’re paying for, not their use. Arguing that it’s unfair that you’re paying for something you don’t use is as pointless as arguing you should get a council tax reduction if you don’t send your kids to school.

The next charter comes into effect at the beginning of 2027, which is 8 years from now, not 10+. As the review process only occurs in the two years running up to this date, there is no chance of the BBC being cut off from all licence fee funding on that time scale. If Parliament is minded to change or end the BBC’s access to public funds, it would do so on a staged basis, which in law could not commence before January 2027.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

How is it selfish not to want to pay for something you don't use. I keep seeing what great value the BBC is at just £12 per month, how is it great value if you never watch it, I watch about 12 hours tv per month, never the BBC, explain how I'm getting great value for money, I can see how others are though due to their viewing being subsidised by mugs like me

A lot of things are subsidised to a extent on many things in this country which some don't use as but sometimes we have think of the wider good that something does rather then ones own self.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

So you're calling me selfish just because i don't want to pay the License Fee, as i don't watch BBC TV or Listen to Radio, i have more important things to spend that £12 on which i would then get a choice to do, that comment is just ridiculous............... Thanks Den!

Perhaps the comment is a bit OTT but many things are subsided to a certain extent SnoopZ and IMO BBC does far more for the greater good in this country then the others put together.

[Stephen]

Not selfish at all.

Being forced to pay the fee is ridiculous. When TV started and it was only the BBC being broadcast and getting those services for that fee.

Most people pay enough for TV and streaming services now so many don't see the need for it.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by denphone

A lot of things are subsidised to a extent on many things in this country which some don't use as but sometimes we have think of the wider good that something does rather then ones own self.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------



Perhaps the comment is a bit OTT but many things are subsided to a certain extent SnoopZ and IMO BBC does far more for the greater good in this country then the others put together.

tv isn't an essential service and shouldn't be subsidised, tv licencing is a relic from a bygone era that's long past it's sell by date and it's purpose is no longer relevant imo