BBC licence fee

Mëtal Bikër said:
Something the British public already financed through the licence fee, they want us to pay for to access again; seems legit. At least it pays for new stuff as well like a vastly inferior, mediocre Spitting Image reboot.
Click to expand...

If you pay to watch a film or theatre performance once you usually only get to see it once. If you want to watch BBC things again or after they have aired and expired from Iplayer you could always record it at the time of transmission.

You don't have the luxury of taking a camcorder into the National or the BFI.

A lot of the stuff on Britbox is stuff previously on other streaming apps or that weren't picked up because there wasn't the market for it on anything other than Bbox's niche.

Most of the new stuff on Britbox is made by ITV's studios. Between 2014-18 they produced exclusive content in a joint venture with Sky for ITV encore.

So in some sense the exclusive content isn't anything new, they have just changed platforms and found a new partner.

en.m.wikipedia.org

ITV Encore - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
I just see it like I see roads or schools or basketball courts in my local park as a non-driver, without kids who doesn't play basketball. I appreciate that we live in a society that increasingly sees everything in highly personal and individual terms, though. I just think good television and radio, accessible to almost everyone, that likewise supports UK creative and cultural industries is ultimately a public service, whether I maximize I use of it or not.

BBC has always had a commercial side - if you ever bought VHS of shows or watched UK Gold then you were spending money on something already paid for. Similarly when TV shows are sold aboard via Worldwide. That money is always folded back into the corporation. If they didn't do that then they would get a kicking from the Tories for not maximizing license payer fees. They really have had 50 years now of being damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of this which is why I'm torn I can't see a need though to pay Alan shearer shit loads for inane 'expert advice' eastenders on 3 times a week or a fat politician dancing. I think the expanse of the corporation has made quality suffer. I think there is a lot padding out to justify its size and payroll.
 
hilts said:
I agree with a lot of this which is why I'm torn I can't see a need though to pay Alan shearer shit loads for inane 'expert advice' eastenders on 3 times a week or a fat politician dancing. I think the expanse of the corporation has made quality suffer. I think there is a lot padding out to justify its size and payroll.
Click to expand...
I suppose the issue the BBC faces is that, judging from this thread, everyone says "well I only watch X, Y and Z, why should I pay for A, B and C", but the everybody's X, Y and Z are apparently different. The basics of media political economy is that stuff gets bundled and you don't watch everything available. But in terms of Strictly etc, entertainment has always been part of its Reithian values and if it didn't do prime time entertainment then they'd get a battering for putting out content no one wants.

Like I say, I don't necessarily think the license fee is the only way of delivering good, public service broadcasting. If you swapped a license fee for a broadband tax and guaranteed ten years of matched or more funding for the institution I'd be happy enough. I just don't trust the current wing of the Tory party, their very clear ideological opposition to public service as an underlying philosophy. and Nadine bloody Dorries, of all people, to be the group that bring in change that doesn't do quite a lot of harm to both the diversity of content, the universality of network coverage, and the creative and cultural industries in the UK.
 
There has been some discussion of a hybrid model. A core, public sector broadcaster is too useful to ditch altogether. The news, documentaries, education and children’s programming are things which the beeb does well. The drama and light entertainment can be done by anybody and we already have a plethora of choice as many here have pointed out. For me then, a core service supported from tax and a separate entity for entertainment supported by subscription.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
I just see it like I see roads or schools or basketball courts in my local park as a non-driver, without kids who doesn't play basketball. I appreciate that we live in a society that increasingly sees everything in highly personal and individual terms, though. I just think good television and radio, accessible to almost everyone, that likewise supports UK creative and cultural industries is ultimately a public service, whether I maximize I use of it or not.

BBC has always had a commercial side - if you ever bought VHS of shows or watched UK Gold then you were spending money on something already paid for. Similarly when TV shows are sold aboard via Worldwide. That money is always folded back into the corporation. If they didn't do that then they would get a kicking from the Tories for not maximizing license payer fees. They really have had 50 years now of being damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Click to expand...
The BBC has been exposed, that's what's really happening. It isn't about some major problem with the idea of what the BBC is, far from it. I don't know anyone who wouldn't pay for quality content but that's not what you get really.

An old dear who listens to the radio and watches BBC news everyday should not be paying £160 a year for that privilege. The parents of a kid watching an educational programme should not be paying £160 per year else they get a visit from bailiffs.

Let's put it another way, the BBC employs 22,000 people and Netflix employs 12,000 people yet who is putting out better content and who is cheaper?

Basically, the BBC cannot compete, it has always been a bloated and costly organisation which exists that way because it can always rely on public money. It has too many people on too much money, it has an office complex in central London and Salford Quays that would rival the richest companies in the world yet the reality is it would barely register on the UK Top 100 list if it was a private company.

Had it not been for it's public funding model then let's face it, it would be bankrupt. The result of that can't be that we all must suck it up and pay whatever it takes to keep it going. We especially shouldn't be doing that if only to ensure that Gary Lineker continues to be paid 10x more than a FTSE100 CEO for a few hours work per week.....
 
inbetween said:
The BBC has been exposed, that's what's really happening. It isn't about some major problem with the idea of what the BBC is, far from it. I don't know anyone who wouldn't pay for quality content but that's not what you get really.

An old dear who listens to the radio and watches BBC news everyday should not be paying £160 a year for that privilege. The parents of a kid watching an educational programme should not be paying £160 per year else they get a visit from bailiffs.

Let's put it another way, the BBC employs 22,000 people and Netflix employs 12,000 people yet who is putting out better content and who is cheaper?

Basically, the BBC cannot compete, it has always been a bloated and costly organisation which exists that way because it can always rely on public money. It has too many people on too much money, it has an office complex in central London and Salford Quays that would rival the richest companies in the world yet the reality is it would barely register on the UK Top 100 list if it was a private company.

Had it not been for it's public funding model then let's face it, it would be bankrupt. The result of that can't be that we all must suck it up and pay whatever it takes to keep it going. We especially shouldn't be doing that if only to ensure that Gary Lineker continues to be paid 10x more than a FTSE100 CEO for a few hours work per week.....
Click to expand...
Netflix and the BBC are apples and oranges, really. One is a public service broadcaster with a very specific remit and charter doing local, national and global radio and television across dozens of channels and the other is a subbed global streaming service that doesn't make nearly as much content as appears on the surface.

How much should the old dear (though presumably not that old otherwise she'd be getting it for free) who listens to the radio and watches BBC News everyday pay? Or a young family who watches CBeebies (presumably along other things as well)?

I'd also question whether Netflix really is putting out as much quality as you claim. When was the last original show that they made that you watched and thought was excellent? The Queen's Gambit? They buy up lots of quality stuff, the BBC's stuff included, but I don't think there reputation is nearly as warranted.

The BBC also plays a role in developing British talent, working with smaller British production companies, that benefit the wider ecosystem.

I don't think the organization is perfect, but I think sacking it off because Gary Lineker is paid a competitive salary would do so much damage to the rest of the creative and cultural sector and the diversity of content available to us. I'm willing to see what Nadine has got to offer us, but, as with much of the Johnson government, this is very short on policy detail.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
Netflix and the BBC are apples and oranges, really. One is a public service broadcaster with a very specific remit and charter doing local, national and global radio and television across dozens of channels and the other is a subbed global streaming service that doesn't make nearly as much content as appears on the surface.

How much should the old dear (though presumably not that old otherwise she'd be getting it for free) who listens to the radio and watches BBC News everyday pay? Or a young family who watches CBeebies (presumably along other things as well)?

I'd also question whether Netflix really is putting out as much quality as you claim. When was the last original show that they made that you watched and thought was excellent? The Queen's Gambit? They buy up lots of quality stuff, the BBC's stuff included, but I don't think there reputation is nearly as warranted.

The BBC also plays a role in developing British talent, working with smaller British production companies, that benefit the wider ecosystem.

I don't think the organization is perfect, but I think sacking it off because Gary Lineker is paid a competitive salary would do so much damage to the rest of the creative and cultural sector and the diversity of content available to us. I'm willing to see what Nadine has got to offer us, but, as with much of the Johnson government, this is very short on policy detail.
Click to expand...

Netflix paid Adam Sandler $240million for 4 shit films. If that is something to go by then Lineker is underpaid.
 
inbetween said:
The BBC has been exposed, that's what's really happening. It isn't about some major problem with the idea of what the BBC is, far from it. I don't know anyone who wouldn't pay for quality content but that's not what you get really.

An old dear who listens to the radio and watches BBC news everyday should not be paying £160 a year for that privilege. The parents of a kid watching an educational programme should not be paying £160 per year else they get a visit from bailiffs.

Let's put it another way, the BBC employs 22,000 people and Netflix employs 12,000 people yet who is putting out better content and who is cheaper?

Basically, the BBC cannot compete, it has always been a bloated and costly organisation which exists that way because it can always rely on public money. It has too many people on too much money, it has an office complex in central London and Salford Quays that would rival the richest companies in the world yet the reality is it would barely register on the UK Top 100 list if it was a private company.

Had it not been for it's public funding model then let's face it, it would be bankrupt. The result of that can't be that we all must suck it up and pay whatever it takes to keep it going. We especially shouldn't be doing that if only to ensure that Gary Lineker continues to be paid 10x more than a FTSE100 CEO for a few hours work per week.....
Click to expand...

There’s way more wide ranging services with the BBC than Netflix.
Radio - I’d go BBC
Shows for my kid - BBC
Live sport - BBC
Live entertainment- BBC

List goes on.

Netflix maybe few more boxsets and films I guess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.