|
Post by bathstoke on Dec 17, 2019 7:49:23 GMT
Was that in their manifesto. All the $#!t that needs doin & that’s a priority. Is that what the people lent their votes to... No one is saying it’s a priority. But it’s a topical subject folk have diverse opinions on. It’s interesting to hear them. Just heard on R4 of a cartoon doing the rounds, with two boys, a football & a broken window. One boy whispers to the other,”Lets blame the BBC”
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 17, 2019 7:57:34 GMT
Seems like there is a gap in the media market in Sweden then. Do you mean you can turn on the clock radio in bed on a Sunday morning, reading the morning paper, and listen to a commercial radio station without any disturbing commercial breaks?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 17, 2019 7:57:45 GMT
If you enjoy the BBC that’s great. But why should I pay for your enjoyment? It's a fair question but I perceive the BBC to be a (very high quality) public service, that is immensely more affordable than comparable services. Luckily, we don't have to pay a specific amount of £160 a year to access the NHS, like we do with the BBC but if we DID have to (pay a comparable amount), would it be fair to suggest, that because somebody didn't want, or need the services of the NHS, then that fee should be abolished and everybody else should have to pay the ACTUAL cost of their individual treatment? To get the levels of broadcast quality that the BBC provides, via private subscription, would mean that huge numbers of the population, simply wouldn't be able to afford the prohibitive cost they would be faced with. The BBC has several funding options available to it - so could still provide “free” TV albeit that would probably involve advertising. Plus it can charge for individual services. The BBC also has plenty of options about how it operates - particularly in reducing costs while still delivering quality programmes. For example, in simply doing less - one TV channel for example. Less extravagant programming - SPOTY has become an overgrown monstrosity over the years. Don’t do expensive “Me Too” programmes like the Voice. Don’t pay Gary Lineker millions to sit in a chair and spout of a few platitudes. There’s loads more. The BBC, in other words, can still deliver services appropriate to its purpose under a different financing scheme than the licence fee and at significantly lower cost.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 17, 2019 8:00:57 GMT
No one is saying it’s a priority. But it’s a topical subject folk have diverse opinions on. It’s interesting to hear them. Just heard on R4 of a cartoon doing the rounds, with two boys, a football & a broken window. One boy whispers to the other,”Lets blame the BBC” Yeah - it’s interesting how politicians from all sides take pot shots at the BBC. This thread though isn’t about BBC partiality or otherwise, it’s about how they should be funded.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 17, 2019 8:01:57 GMT
Seems like there is a gap in the media market in Sweden then. Do you mean you can turn on the clock radio in bed on a Sunday morning, reading the morning paper, and listen to a commercial radio station without any disturbing commercial breaks? Subscribe to Spotify.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 17, 2019 8:07:08 GMT
We used to have a license fee for our national radio and tv, paid by everyone who owned or rented a tv. With thousands of controllers visiting people's homes to make sure they paid for what they got. You paid if you HAD a tv, and most people had.
Then, in January 2019, this costly organized system was abandoned and now everyone is paying a percentage of their income - with limits.
So no license fee now. The new system is unfair in one way: you have to pay through tax even if you DON'T HAVE a tv. And in a household with both parents and two grown up teenagers with jobs as well, they'll pay four times for what comes out of the tv ...
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 17, 2019 8:10:52 GMT
Do you mean you can turn on the clock radio in bed on a Sunday morning, reading the morning paper, and listen to a commercial radio station without any disturbing commercial breaks? Subscribe to Spotify. Internet. It should be a state gift.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 17, 2019 8:14:41 GMT
Internet. It should be a state gift. Corbyn thought the same. That subject might merit a separate thread.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 17, 2019 8:16:18 GMT
We used to have a license fee for our national radio and tv, paid by everyone who owned or rented a tv. With thousands of controllers visiting people's homes to make sure they paid for what they got. You paid if you HAD a tv, and most people had. Then, in January 2019, this costly organized system was abandoned and now everyone is paying a percentage of their income - with limits. So no license fee now. The new system is unfair in one way: you have to pay through tax even if you DON'T HAVE a tv. And in a household with both parents and two grown up teenagers with jobs as well, they'll pay four times for what comes out of the tv ... A TV poll tax! There may be trouble ahead...
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Dec 17, 2019 8:19:59 GMT
Just heard on R4 of a cartoon doing the rounds, with two boys, a football & a broken window. One boy whispers to the other,”Lets blame the BBC” Yeah - it’s interesting how politicians from all sides take pot shots at the BBC. This thread though isn’t about BBC partiality or otherwise, it’s about how they should be funded. It’ll be a stick to beat them with...
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Dec 17, 2019 8:51:10 GMT
To add to my above post once you reach retirement age you should get all tv free sky, virgin or whatever. Have you reached retirement age? No many years to go.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 17, 2019 9:35:07 GMT
If you enjoy the BBC that’s great. But why should I pay for your enjoyment? It's a fair question but I perceive the BBC to be a (very high quality) public service, that is immensely more affordable than comparable services. Luckily, we don't have to pay a specific amount of £160 a year to access the NHS, like we do with the BBC but if we DID have to (pay a comparable amount), would it be fair to suggest, that because somebody didn't want, or need the services of the NHS, then that fee should be abolished and everybody else should have to pay the ACTUAL cost of their individual treatment? To get the levels of broadcast quality that the BBC provides, via private subscription, would mean that huge numbers of the population, simply wouldn't be able to afford the prohibitive cost they would be faced with. They'd have to act like a private business and stop doing things like having Dan Walker (and lots of others) chauffeured into work at £200 a day despite earning £250k a year, or having reporters live outside Westminster with a film crew at 10.00pm on a Sunday night, when fook all is happening. I wonder how much SPOTY took from the budget to travel to Aberdeen, put in hotels, free food and booze for the weekend basically an internal back slapping, arse licking fest. The BBC haemorrhage money as they aren't too responsible for it.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Dec 17, 2019 11:27:06 GMT
Internet. It should be a state gift. So you mean we end up paying for it anyway through taxation, but extra because of the government staff necessary to administrate this stupid bureaucracy? You can bet that the ISP's would put their prices right up as well if they knew that internet was a guaranteed right that was backed up against unpaid bills. Lunacy.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 17, 2019 11:45:27 GMT
Internet. It should be a state gift. So you mean we end up paying for it anyway through taxation, but extra because of the government staff necessary to administrate this stupid bureaucracy? You can bet that the ISP's would put their prices right up as well if they knew that internet was a guaranteed right that was backed up against unpaid bills. Lunacy. Every government that force digitalization upon their citizens should make sure every citizen have a mobile phone, a computer and internet access. It has become difficult to even pay with paper money and coins in shops these days and the banks don't have any paper money anymore, here in Sweden. I'm very much for companies, business and trade on free markets - but when it comes to for instance defence and communication, I think it should be handled by the state.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Dec 17, 2019 11:46:22 GMT
So here goes. I think the licence fee should stay. I think it should be free for anyone reaching pension age and decriminalised but a citizen funded National broadcaster is fine. I have a problem with the impartiality and uber PC leanings but the output over all platforms is vast. If you don't want to pay the fee don't watch BBC or catch up and don't pay. The thing is you have to pay the BBC whether or not you watch it if you watch other terrestrial channels. Let the people who watch it pay for it. Only live programmes and anything on BBC iplayer. Using a TV to watch catchup on ITV doesn't need a licence. The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to: watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.) download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer. This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder. TV Licensing
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Dec 17, 2019 11:58:39 GMT
The thing is you have to pay the BBC whether or not you watch it if you watch other terrestrial channels. Let the people who watch it pay for it. Only live programmes and anything on BBC iplayer. Using a TV to watch catchup on ITV doesn't need a licence. The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to: watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.) download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer. This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder. TV LicensingBizarre. So I'm using a device to watch live ITV and I have to pay a pound of flesh to the BBC because they're broadcasting into my house despite my not asking for it. It's like if I had a coffee maker at home to drink Kenco, and Nescafe come in and dunk half a cup of their beans in against my will, and then threaten me with court action for non-payment because I might have drank some of their beans after I'd had a sip because there's no way of knowing if I'd had their beans or not. Absolutely backward, and frankly tyrannical.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 17, 2019 17:11:00 GMT
Unluke pretty much every other media outlet, the BBC seems to be hated equally by both sides at the moment.
That alone means it should continue as it is for another five years.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 18, 2019 2:19:23 GMT
One of the first acts of this new Government is to launch a consultation on decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee. The bigger question, which Johnson raised during the election, is should we fund the BBC through a licence fee at all. What do folks think? I’d bin it and have the BBC find ways to fund its operations commercially.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Dec 19, 2019 19:08:52 GMT
I would have no problem in supporting the licence fee as a means to fund the BBC, as a Public Service Broadcaster, if they could convince me that they were using that money properly.
Paying massive salaries for management and, so called, talent and wasting money on junkets, taxis, hotels etc etc is NOT spending it properly
The BBC claim they have to "pay the going rate for talent" which is bollocks. Young talent would be knocking their doors down for the opportunities and exposure that the BBC could offer, thee is no need to 'chase' the likes of Ross or Lineker. Same with all the cash they wasted on Chris Evans, and now Zoe Ball, on Radio 2. Totally unnecessary
If the BBC could get its house in order then the licence fee would be good value, failing that, take it away
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2020 17:44:07 GMT
The licence fee is increasing from April BBC licence fee set to increase by £3 from April 1 link
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Feb 3, 2020 18:44:45 GMT
I am in favour of keeping the licence. The cost is a few newspapers per week.
The value for money is excellent, particularly "quality programmes". Although there is an obsession with diversity rather than quality.
I wonder how much the private broadcasting companies benefit from "stealing" from the BBC, e.g. news, weather.
Having said that there needs to be a lot tighter regulation of its activities. There is a clear left wing bias, an obsession with political correctness, overpay of many employees who are just not worth it, too many involved in producing programmes, too much repetition. I could go on. I do feel a lot of my licence fee is being pocketed by people stealing a living, and it could be even better value for money.
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Feb 3, 2020 20:56:41 GMT
Stay, but it should be covered by your sky/virgin subscription (without them hiking the price so you still pay it anyway)
If you watch iPlayer/ have free view you should pay for it anything else you shouldn’t but wouldn’t be adverse to BBC having to find itself, no one watches adverts any more anyway.
In my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 4, 2020 11:01:19 GMT
They'll have to change it at some point over the next few years, or get left behind. Whether us old fogeys like it or not, the younger generation aren't arsed about terrestial TV. Everything is youtube nowadays. Instant access, 5-10 minute videos, quick, punchy and instant gratification in terms of what they're looking for (and even the ads can be skipped after 5 seconds). And the younger generation i refer to certainly aren't just little kids, they're also "kids" who grew up with it and now are late teens/in their 20s i.e. it certainly isn't just a fad for little 'uns. The celebrities and stars to teens these days aren't TV stars, they're youtubers and "twitchers" (and they ARE celebrities to them, even though i haven't heard of any them because i'm an old fucker...take a look on youtube at some of the "Meet and greets" these youtubers do with fans. They have literally tens of thousands of people turn up to adore them and many have millions of subscribers. One youtuber my daughter is into has nearly 20 million subscribers and her videos regularly have over 10 million views...that's higher viewing figures than Eastenders, Corrie, MOTD etc. etc. ever get. Popular youtubers also make literally millions out of it as a career as well). Youtube however is 100%, completely free. The content obviously isn't as lavishly produced and may not be as informative or as interesting as us old timers expect from the likes of the BBC, but the simple fact is that kids have the choice between watching TV (as let's face it, virtually all kids have their own TVs nowadays, so it's not as if they're refusing to watch because they just want to be away from their parents) or youtube and most choose youtube. WE may still want TV in it's familiar format that we all grew up with, but it isn't us that will decide on how things will be viewed moving forwards, it's the future generations and they simply don't want viewable entertainment in the same format that we've all got used to. The BBC will have to change or they'll just disappear. They keep trying to tell the viewing public what we want and deciding for us what we will/won't be interested in, whereas online platforms actually cater to the audience and ask for suggestions of what the audience would like them to do videos about. They actually make content that THE PUBLIC has asked for. Its the way of the world nowadays, and the Beeb need to catch onto that pretty damn quickly.
The world is changing and as usual the antiquated, archaic Beeb run by middle aged blokes still bury their heads in the sand, increase the fee and refuse to move forwards and actually engage with their viewers "wants", instead of taking note of the current situation re: what people want and realising that they're being left behind.
|
|
|
Post by riverman on Feb 4, 2020 15:29:27 GMT
People always tend to focus solely on the tv when they talk about the licence fee and forget about the whole range of the BBC's output. All the radio from R1 to the world service both national and regional. Regional programming, I/Player,publishing,investment in films and the new technology needed to keep abreast of modern media production. I agree that the salaries they pay are ridiculous but that's down to market forces unfortunately. I'd hate for them to have to take on advertising as a means of funding. We all know how shit commercial radio is and how distracting ad breaks are. I personally think the licence fee is great value for money when put into context.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Feb 4, 2020 15:59:30 GMT
It's a fair question but I perceive the BBC to be a (very high quality) public service, that is immensely more affordable than comparable services. Luckily, we don't have to pay a specific amount of £160 a year to access the NHS, like we do with the BBC but if we DID have to (pay a comparable amount), would it be fair to suggest, that because somebody didn't want, or need the services of the NHS, then that fee should be abolished and everybody else should have to pay the ACTUAL cost of their individual treatment? To get the levels of broadcast quality that the BBC provides, via private subscription, would mean that huge numbers of the population, simply wouldn't be able to afford the prohibitive cost they would be faced with. They'd have to act like a private business and stop doing things like having Dan Walker (and lots of others) chauffeured into work at £200 a day despite earning £250k a year, or having reporters live outside Westminster with a film crew at 10.00pm on a Sunday night, when fook all is happening. I wonder how much SPOTY took from the budget to travel to Aberdeen, put in hotels, free food and booze for the weekend basically an internal back slapping, arse licking fest. The BBC haemorrhage money as they aren't too responsible for it. In addition BBC have correspondents for just about every subject and in every civilised country on the globe. Remember the Iceland Eyjafjallajökull vulcano eruption in 2010 and up popped the "BBC Iceland correspondent" as if she was sitting in a hotel for years waiting for a story. That’s how it seems anyway.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Feb 4, 2020 17:11:17 GMT
Personally I would probably pay for it if it went to a subscription model, but how can you justify forcing someone to pay for something that is non essential that they might not want or need ?
It was perhaps more justifiable in the pre internet days when there was a need for it to inform people of world events, but now theres no shortage of ways for people to stay informed, we have a whole range of commercial and subscription based outlets that people can use, the licence fee is an outdated model in this day in age, i think it should be scrapped.
|
|
|
Post by chigstoke on Feb 4, 2020 17:26:53 GMT
I do not understand why you should pay a small wedge to the BBC if you don’t watch anything to do with BBC, either live or iplayer.
I barely watch terrestrial now. I’m all in on Amazon, Netflix, YouTube or any special networks like WWE network or Axs. The nerve of owning a TV and set top box ay!
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Feb 4, 2020 18:18:54 GMT
i listen to radio 2,4, 5 most days, i use bbc.co.uk more than most other websites, i watch their TV/iplayer programs and I am happy to pay (twice as it happens - you have to pay again for second homes). No adverts is a great thing, the commercial channels do my head in.
But I don't think people who don't use it should have to pay for it.
I have several issues with the management of it though, like our universities, it is increasingly run by a clique of politically correct lefties - with huge positive discrimination towards LGBT groups.
|
|
|
Post by woodstein on Feb 4, 2020 23:11:20 GMT
Great FA cup game on tonight. Worth every penny!😄
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2020 23:38:43 GMT
I think it absolutely should stay. I've got 2.5tb box which is permanently about 80% full and 90% of that content is from the BBC. Once a week I go through all the channels on catch-up and NEVER download anything off of ITV or Channel 5 and very rarely download anything off of Channel 4. We've got all the sky channels and the only thing we use it for, is the odd decent thing off Sky Atlantic, Sky Arts (which we use a lot) and football. I think the quality of stuff on the BBC is outstanding (including radio) and I'd hate for it to go the way of the commercial channels. I do realise that's due to personal preference of course. If you enjoy the BBC that’s great. But why should I pay for your enjoyment? Was thinking the same. If you like it subscribe. I watch MOTD only and now even that is going all PC on us .I Record it and wind through the analysis. Without doubt the worst of the so called Free channels for me.
|
|