As I stated. It’s not for me. There’s quite a lot of us who it’s not for. It’s had its day and has been surpassed. Folk can individually select where they receive their own media now. I’ve no issue with it staying on as a subscription service. I’m not actively calling for the abolishment I just think it should be optional.I can’t think of any alternatives that provide the spectrum of services the bbc does to all age groups and across all interests
If you can’t see a valid argument why it isn’t a subscription service, then do you think the same of any other public services? Or is it you don’t believe that we need one for what the bbc does?
As I stated. It’s not for me. There’s quite a lot of us who it’s not for. It’s had its day and has been surpassed. Folk can individually select where they receive their own media now. I’ve no issue with it staying on as a subscription service. I’m not actively calling for the abolishment I just think it should be optional.
What does it do that’s not commercially viable and wouldn’t work on a subscription service?Sorry, just to add one point from my perspective. There is plenty that the bbc does that would not be commercially viable and wouldn’t work either elsewhere or on a subscription based platform. That doesn’t make it any less vital unless we really want to dumb down as an overall society and not consider the interests of others.
I will always argue for the presence of an independent news service too.
I’m not sure there is another service like it tbh. I don’t mean that I’m a positive way. The internet allows folk to select where they get there own specific need for media input. If I want sport I go to the sports providers. I take my news media from several different sources allowing me to form my own opinion. For children’s programs my daughter uses YouTube, Netflix and amazon. The modern way is taking bite size chunks from different sources. I think in the past it has been a valuable resource but now it’s had its day in the present format. Those folk who want it can subscribe.I get it’s not for you, that’s not what I was asking. I was asking if you saw the value in it for others, given it’s a public service that you’re paying for that isn’t just for you.
Out of interest, who has surpassed it for independent news broadcasting, children’s programming or cultural programming, to name a few? Or do you just mean it’s been surpassed in the things you’re personally interested in?
I’m not sure there is another service like it tbh. I don’t mean that I’m a positive way. The internet allows folk to select where they get there own specific need for media input. If I want sport I go to the sports providers. I take my news media from several different sources allowing me to form my own opinion. For children’s programs my daughter uses YouTube, Netflix and amazon. The modern way is taking bite size chunks from different sources. I think in the past it has been a valuable resource but now it’s had its day in the present format. Those folk who want it can subscribe.
Like I said I’m not calling for the abolishment. I’m simply suggesting that a subscription service would be a fairer way of funding it. IMO it’s not independent but I respect the right of you to think it is.it keeps independent news free on the internet
for that alone its worth keeping
What does it do that’s not commercially viable and wouldn’t work on a subscription service?
I personally don’t believe it’s possible to present the news independent of a slant. I also don’t believe the bbc news is independent but that’s straying from my original point that it should be optional. I used the fact that I don’t utilise it personally to support my opinion. It seems to me that there is no reasonable reason why it shouldn’t be a subscription service.
I personally don’t think it provides the public service that you think it does. It certainly doesn’t provide a service for everyone as there are many folk that don’t watch/listen/read any of its content. The reason for this for me is that I don’t rate the quality.A lot of it depending on what subscription model it turns to - one to replace the licence fee that provides access to everything they do now? Or one where you choose the content you personally consume and only pay for that?
If you want the former then that would likely end up more expensive for those individuals consuming it than the current licence fee costs, meaning some people could lose access to it entirely and have no alternative. If you want the latter then it has the impact of reducing the content it will produce if it doesn’t make enough money and so doesn’t provide the service for everyone it does now.
The other channels would be free as well as freeview for those who couldn’t afford the potentially increased subscription cost. The fact that you admit the costs would increase and/or content would be streamlined if it became a subscription service tells me it’s not fit for purpose with the present funding model. I think you know a lot of folk would opt out based on the fact they don’t enjoy the content.
I think it once was a valuable public service provider of information, news and entertainment. I don’t think it is now. I’m not alone in that view. I certainly don’t think the news is independent. I personally don’t think it offers the safety blanket for the population that you seem to see. If I choose not to consume it because I don’t value it nor enjoy it that doesn’t make me selfish. It’s my personal choice.Again I’d argue it’s needed as much now as ever before, particularly from a news perspective given the blurring of the lines between opinion and facts that is so prevalent nowadays.
I think it once was a valuable public service provider of information, news and entertainment. I don’t think it is now. I’m not alone in that view. I certainly don’t think the news is independent. I personally don’t think it offers the safety blanket for the population that you seem to see. If I choose not to consume it because I don’t value it nor enjoy it that doesn’t make me selfish. It’s my personal choice.
I’m completely pro welfare state. In fact my entire career has been in public service. I don’t view the bbc as a necessity for the welfare of society. Therefore I don’t view it as part of the welfare structure. I don’t think it’s fair that a portion of the population are expected to pay for a service they don’t utilise just so another portion of the population can watch eastenders, some bailif crap or listen to zoe ball. I certainly don’t think that’s a selfish stance.No one said it did. You not considering that you’re paying for others to consume it too is.
Out of interest if you don’t think it’s independent, who do you think is influencing it?
I’m completely pro welfare state. In fact my entire career has been in public service. I don’t view the bbc as a necessity for the welfare of society. Therefore I don’t view it as part of the welfare structure. I don’t think it’s fair that a portion of the population are expected to pay for a service they don’t utilise just so another portion of the population can watch eastenders, some bailif crap or listen to zoe ball. I certainly don’t think that’s a selfish stance.
I think it’s influenced by the sitting government. The recent appointment of a conservative leaning DG seems to support this opinion.
The thing is those types of programs I mentioned are where a bulk of the bbc budget goes. Over £1b on bbc 1 alone. £86m on a new set for eastenders??? News aside as we disagree completely on its validity as a neutral provider, what is the ‘public service’ that the bbc provides that couldn’t be repackaged into a subscription model. The three main formats TV/radio/website could be individually priced so that the consumer could choose.We’ll have to agree to disagree on your first point as I do think it’s of huge value. The examples you’ve provided of it less so though as those are examples of things commercial broadcasters can do well enough anyway.
Again I’d argue it’s needed as much now as ever before, particularly from a news perspective given the blurring of the lines between opinion and facts that is so prevalent nowadays.
The problem is in order for those ‘moaning’ people to watch what they prefer they still have to pay the licence.They're never going to privatise the BBC, the ones who want it to be should stop moaning and just don't pay jeez