BBC licence fee

[Pedestrian]

You can’t split out radio and expect people to pay for it separately without it being internet only, that’s impossible

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.

 

[Pedestrian]

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.

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.

 

[Fame Monster]

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.

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.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

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

I know, but higher taxes don't go down well at the ballot box.

 

[meltonblue]

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.

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.

 

[meltonblue]

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.

If you can find the news article then fine but im not sure where you would even see the link unless you were going in and looking for programmes.

 

[Pedestrian]

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.

 

[meltonblue]

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.

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.

 

[Pedestrian]

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.

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?

 

[Rascal]

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?

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,

Which way do you think the news is slanted?

 

[Rascal]

I have no loyalty at all to the bbc. The rosey nostalgic image portrayed by some on here is laughable. It’s an outdated service that shouldn’t be forced upon folk. If people don’t use its content they should be free to ingest their media and spend there money where they want. ‘Flood watch’ hahaha. Maybe 30 years ago. Local radio keeping folk up to date with local matters. Maybe 30 years ago. The internet has taken over that function. Farage is on more then most politicians because boris is restricting access to his lot and if they just had the other parties on they’d be unbalanced politically. Although the bbc does employ Laura kunessberg which is like having access to a Tory politician on tap.
Some things the commercial sector do better. Netflix for content wipes the floor with the bbc from an entertainment aspect. News is much better digested from several different sources that way you can make your own mind up. Sports is non existent. The main radio station is absolute bollocks anyway but I agree there are some interesting and informative programs on some of the other stations. TBH it doesn’t really matter what any of us want because the funding model will need changing as more and more people opt out of paying.
Im not against the BBC I just think in the main it’s rubbish and I don’t agree that we should have to pay for a service we don’t use. I’m basically being made to pay for a bbc licence so I can watch Netflix, freeview and sky.

You do realise you need a TV licence to watch live sport on any channel don't you?

And you don't like it, I get that, so you don't want to pay for it.

So answer my point if you can. I don't agree with nuclear weapons and I don't want to pay for them because I have moral and ethical objections to nuclear weapons, but I am forced to pay for them.

Explain to me the difference, because they are both in effect a public socialised service.

 

[RabidCity]

You do realise you need a TV licence to watch live sport on any channel don't you?

And you don't like it, I get that, so you don't want to pay for it.

So answer my point if you can. I don't agree with nuclear weapons and I don't want to pay for them because I have moral and ethical objections to nuclear weapons, but I am forced to pay for them.

Explain to me the difference, because they are both in effect a public socialised service.

Hi Rascal,
I agree with you in principle, however your contributions towards the 'nuclear weapons' are based on your ability to pay for it. The BBC fee is the same for everyone regardless of earnings.

So if you're proposing the BBC becomes a publicly funded enterprise through the taxation system, then I'd agree this would be something we an all contribute a small amount to.

Your aversion to Nuclear Weapons is no different from someone without a car contributing to the upkeep of roads through council tax.

 

[Pedestrian]

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,

Which way do you think the news is slanted?

These were all very valuable resources 20-30 years ago. To think in 2020 that folk would be sat by the radio awaiting the next shovel load of government ineptitude during a crisis is stretching it.

As previously stated I think the bbc news slants towards the sitting government at the time. Cummings is controlling access to MP’s in a very trumpian way but the message of the day is getting airtime through Laura kuenssberg who’s is basically the unofficial Tory spokeswoman for the bbc.

 

[meltonblue]

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?

I don’t think it is skewed, this thread alone is evidence of people arguing that point both ways which suggests the balance isn’t far off. I trust it’s output far more than virtually all others, put it that way, and I can easily know if I am listening to news vs opinion or commentary, something most of the media is blurring the lines even more between.

In terms of the public service though, I can’t think of any other broadcaster that has the cultural and educational reach that the bbc has, a lot of which isn’t found on other platforms as it’s not viable commercially. I wouldn’t underestimate the amount of people that consume and rely on local radio too.

 

[Pedestrian]

I don’t think it is skewed, this thread alone is evidence of people arguing that point both ways which suggests the balance isn’t far off.

In terms of the public service though, I can’t think of any other broadcaster that has the cultural and educational reach that the bbc has, a lot of which isn’t found on other platforms as it’s not viable commercially. I wouldn’t underestimate the amount of people that consume and rely on local radio too.

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I see nothing cultural or educational about bbc1, radio 1 nor the website. They are where the main bulk of the money goes. Ditch bbc1 and radio 1 and go to a subscription service which without them would be cheaper then what we’re paying now. That way the small amount of people who listen to local radio can continue and the more cultural and educational tv channels can continue. The website would be easy to put behind a paywall. Nothing you nor rascal has said has altered my position at all. I think the pair of You are a bit lost in times gone by and would be interested to know how old you both are.
The present funding model will go. The tories have another 4 years to ensure that happens which it will uncontested.

 

[meltonblue]

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I see nothing cultural or educational about bbc1, radio 1 nor the website. They are where the main bulk of the money goes. Ditch bbc1 and radio 1 and go to a subscription service which without them would be cheaper then what we’re paying now. That way the small amount of people who listen to local radio can continue and the more cultural and educational tv channels can continue. The website would be easy to put behind a paywall. Nothing you nor rascal has said has altered my position at all. I think the pair of You are a bit lost in times gone by and would be interested to know how old you both are.The present funding model will go. The tories have another 4 years to ensure that happens which it will uncontested.

You don’t see anything cultural about bbc dramas or educational about bbc documentaries on bbc one that are also huge money makers worldwide? Admittedly I was referring to more the niche stuff you get on bbc two or four, but still...

I’m in my late thirties. You do seem to be thinking about it still based on your own perception of it, which is fine. I’m not though, I’m not judging it on my own consumption, I’m judging it on whether it’s fulfilling its brief in the charter and others do that do want to consume it.

My issue with putting it behind a paywall or a subscription service is that you do immediately make it focus on the high commercial items and one of it’s key reason for being is gone anyway.

I think there’s a stronger argument to just get rid of it given I’m not sure how it can stay as a public service operating under royal charter if it does completely change its mo. It’s not one I would agree with either though.

 

[Rascal]

Hi Rascal,
I agree with you in principle, however your contributions towards the 'nuclear weapons' are based on your ability to pay for it. The BBC fee is the same for everyone regardless of earnings.

So if you're proposing the BBC becomes a publicly funded enterprise through the taxation system, then I'd agree this would be something we an all contribute a small amount to.

Your aversion to Nuclear Weapons is no different from someone without a car contributing to the upkeep of roads through council tax.

The principle is the same though and everyone pays towards nuclear weapons because VAT is paid by everyone and that is a form of general taxation. Am I to refuse to pay VAT because I don't agree with nuclear weapons, I am to refuse to pay VAT because I don't use the M9, should I refuse to pay for schools because I no longer go.

The refusal to pay is purely driven by capitalist cranks who hate the thought of anything that is socialised. So what do we do after the BBC is given over to private ownership, do we privatise the Nuclear Subs, do We privatise the Police, Do we privatise all the roads, where does it end? We have already many national assets sold off to the capitalists and its about time it was stopped, because these national assets are our assets that we have paid for through years of taxation. I dont mind competiton being set up, but leave the last few remaining public institutions alone because we will have nothing left and live in a world where everything is owned by the capitalist cranks who can then exploit the working class for profit at every turn.

 

[Pedestrian]

You don’t see anything cultural about bbc dramas or educational about bbc documentaries on bbc one that are also huge money makers worldwide? Admittedly I was referring to more the niche stuff you get on bbc two or four, but still...

I’m in my late thirties. You do seem to be thinking about it still based on your own perception of it, which is fine. I’m not though, I’m not judging it on my own consumption, I’m judging it on whether it’s fulfilling its brief in the charter and others do that do want to consume it.

My issue with putting it behind a paywall or a subscription service is that you do immediately make it focus on the high commercial items and one of it’s key reason for being is gone anyway.

I think there’s a stronger argument to just get rid of it given I’m not sure how it can stay as a public service operating under royal charter if it does completely change its mo. It’s not one I would agree with either though.

I appreciate that some of the content on bbc2 & both bbc4 and radio 4 is informative and often very well done. A lot of this stuff I think would be made by the commercial sector as it sells very well. However nothing about bbc1 or radio 1 appeals to me and it’s my money that is being spent on the latest eastenders set so I feel justified in having an opinion, whether it’s negative or not.
I think the fundamental difference between us is is that I don’t view it as a necessary public service. I think at a time it was but that time has gone. To compare the importance of it to health and education is little odd. But I respect your opinion and in a strange way admire both yours and rascals defence of it.
FWIW I have no respect or admiration for any of the political parties nor the royal family and I’d be happy for the union to be broken up. I’m all for modernising which is partly why I think the bbc is dated and either needs to catch up or fold.

 

[Rascal]

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I see nothing cultural or educational about bbc1, radio 1 nor the website. They are where the main bulk of the money goes. Ditch bbc1 and radio 1 and go to a subscription service which without them would be cheaper then what we’re paying now. That way the small amount of people who listen to local radio can continue and the more cultural and educational tv channels can continue. The website would be easy to put behind a paywall. Nothing you nor rascal has said has altered my position at all. I think the pair of You are a bit lost in times gone by and would be interested to know how old you both are.
The present funding model will go. The tories have another 4 years to ensure that happens which it will uncontested.

I would be interested to know how old you are and what field you are in.

I would also be interested to know how you will go about filling the skills gap when the BBC is reduced to a shell. Where will the technicians be trained? What happens to the UK film industry as result.

The Tory party are ideologically against the BBC and have been for decades, it suffered funding cuts and a lot of its programming was outsourced to companies like Mentorn, which slashed working conditions because it could after Thatcher all but destroyed Union power. This led to a drain of the brightest and best technicians from the UK to other countries and those who stayed were paid a lot less and their conditions were poorer. Where once it was a privilige and you could take pride in working for the BBC the Tories destroyed it and now they want the coup de grace helped by the shady organisations that suck Murdochs cock. As for cultural output how much of that do you get on other platforms? One of the biggest cultural events the BBC used to cover was the Eistedfodd, because as a national and regional broadcaster it had a duty to provide cultural programming for Wales. Can you see Netflix covering the Eistedfodd?

One of the reasons why cultural programming took such a hit was because the BBC was underfunded and it had to find other ways of making programmes. Its big sellers like Attenborughs docunmentaries still make the nation millions and BBC Bristol has some of the best wild life technicians in the world. Will Netflix be interested in that and if so will they pay the wages that the staff deserve or will they like so many of our former industries and skills be sold down the river for corporate greed.

 

[Pedestrian]

...The refusal to pay is purely driven by capitalist cranks who hate the thought of anything that is socialised.

My aversion to not paying is based on the fact I don’t like any of the content nor the website. You clarified your understanding of this in a previous post so this statement is drivel. I’m not on the phone to Darren grimes all day being told what to like or not. Just because folk disagree with your political stance or opinion it doesn’t mean the boogey man got to them.

...and live in a world where everything is owned by the capitalist cranks who can then exploit the working class for profit at every turn.

Welcome to now. The football journalism on the bbc is partisan and based on getting clicks across the world so is heavily in favour of the bigger supported clubs. The pathetic football tv coverage is the same. How many years now have manure been the FA cup game? (when they’re still in it).
They’ve just appointed a tory DG, the end is nigh.