But the radio is part of the package now without it being internet only. Folk who don’t pay can still listen if they choose to. There is no barrier now. Why would there need to be a barrier if the three main areas were split up into bundles.You can’t split out radio and expect people to pay for it separately without it being internet only, that’s impossible
Thats a fantastic idea. However it would only be the bbc content that is blocked for those who don’t pay. Netflix and amazon are online and if the bbc content were blocked on freeview then the remaining channels would be available. That is the fairest model. It would also give the bbc a better idea of its worth which would allow it to plan better for the future. I suspect the higher earners would have to take a hit but then I think Zoe ball and Gary Lineker are dinosaurs that need moving on anyway.Said it before and I'll say it again. As soon as they can adopt the tech then yeah great - those of us who pay get the TV, radio and on line content. Those who don't lose it. Go on a TV channel on whatever platform Sky or Freeview - blank screen - turn on your radio - dead air - go online - page not available. Go on DAVE to watch a repeat of HIGNFY or similar - blank screen...then yay the defund the BBC warriors have won. They don't want to pay coz they don't watch it ...mission accomplished.
Why on earth would you post that example though, that’s a summary of a programme, not news and it’s absolutely not a headline. It isn’t even on the news section of the website, that’s either false equivalence gone utterly insane or you wanting the bbc to assume that they have to treat everyone as a complete idiot who can’t tell the difference between a synopsis and a news story.
I know, but higher taxes don't go down well at the ballot box.I would scrap the licence fee and make sure the BBC is funded properly through general taxation so it could meet the needs of all the population
But the radio is part of the package now without it being internet only. Folk who don’t pay can still listen if they choose to. There is no barrier now. Why would there need to be a barrier if the three main areas were split up into bundles.
It was in the news section of the BBC website though on the homepage when it first appeared and when I first posted it which is my point about blurring the line between fact and opinion.
There's no way you'd know that was a programme synopsis without clicking on the link. You'd just see a very specious claim with little basis in fact which could easily be mistaken for fact.
It would probably have to be included in with the TV bundle and separately the laughable website would be behind a paywall. I anticipate that broadband will at some point be free for all which would solve the issue of making the radio access internet only.Because it can’t be it’s own bundle, think about it. No one would pay for it. It works now because it is isn’t a subscription model so the costs the bbc get are enough to provide across the multi platform it does and know that some could access it for free.
You would at least have to increase the cost for the tv subscription to cover radio too which would then make it potentially too expensive for some people to consume it as a whole that have no alternative source.
It would probably have to be included in with the TV bundle and separately the laughable website would be behind a paywall. I anticipate that broadband will at some point be free for all which would solve the issue of making the radio access internet only.
Do you think people should have a right to access the BBC? Do you place it in the same category as say healthcare and education? Which are both heavily influenced by the sitting government. Rascal suggested funding it from the central budget which would bring it more in line with those PS’s mentioned and allow for even more government influence over content. I suspect that most people would prefer a subscription model rather then greater government influence over content especially the news, which imo is already heavily slanted favourably towards the sitting government.
I asked this a couple times yesterday but what service does it provide the is crucial to the general public’s care and well being other then the slanted news output?Yes I do place it in the same category as healthcare and medication. I don’t overly mind if it’s funded from general taxation or how it currently is as long as the charter is fulfilled.
Its the emergency radio channels for Govt in case of things going wrong for a start. Its local radio channels are niche and not commercially viable but offer a service to many communities. That is the point of public broadcasting,I asked this a couple times yesterday but what service does it provide the is crucial to the general public’s care and well being other then the slanted news output?