5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 16, 2022 18:18:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 16, 2022 18:22:30 GMT
But I *do* get all that for £160 a year. Can't see what point you're trying to make. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 16, 2022 18:23:04 GMT
archives are available for other broadcasters/media/etc I know, but there is a public appetite too, not just the drama series on Britbox, but some of the old folk horror series, Arena, Omnibus, Chronicle, children's series. Making things available overseas for a fee too, especially radio drama, serials and comedy - i have lots of English speaking friends overseas who would love that ability. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 16, 2022 18:26:04 GMT
I don't drive or have children. By a lot of people's logic about the licence fee I should be able to opt out of tax that pays for schools and roads.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 16, 2022 18:29:37 GMT
It is always disappointing when the BBC fails to acquire the big sporting events as it never has enough dosh for them. A separate sports channel might address that problem with a subscription to it which could be flexible and which you could pop into and out of, so when the big ones are up, you join and pay enhanced fee then leave if you want to; probably a lot of people would join up and stay joined up. Earlier in the thread there is a pic of all the stuff contained in the licence fee. But I do not want all of that. Most people don't want all of it. BBC3? No thanks, CBeebies, nope not now thanks. And the radio is not part of it anyway. You can have a radio blasting out any BBC station with no licence required. I don’t expect to pay for the lobster on the menu just because the restaurant is offering it when I want to eat the salad. But isn't that exactly the argument for why you pay your licence in the first place? You like watching some things. Your licence pays for that. Others educated their kids via Cbeebies. Licence covers that. Point is, we all pay in and we all get something back. Do you insist on driving on every patch of road in Britain because your tax helped pay for it? No, you use a small slice of it and you pay a small slice of money for it. Good point. Taxation covers us all and we pay for all that we allow our governments to do. I do not want a high speed train to Birmingham ( who on earth does ?) but I am paying for it, a few pennies.. and so on and so on but there are roads you pay for, toll roads and you can choose not to go on them. I would pay for what I want , like theatre, like cinema, like books ( yes there are libraries so there is some choice here but the main point applies) In many ways I am playing devil’s advocate because my love of such programmes as Strictly has no bounds but tbh I can name only a very few proggies on BBC I always watch. The other channels and the other platforms offer me and interestingly, have offered me during this blasted last two years, much more. Maybe it is something about the talent being spread too thinly. After all, in the olden days, if you wanted to put on a play on the telly, there was no other place to go. Lovely stories of the big names then just strolling in with scripts and being put on the following week. But not now. The BBC has taken on all our current angst but not the creativity and the flexibility. Just saying. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 16, 2022 18:31:05 GMT
I don't drive or have children. By a lot of people's logic about the licence fee I should be able to opt out of tax that pays for schools and roads. Not quite because the ambulance coming to you uses your road and other roads and the paramedic was educated in the school up the road..as it were. You benefit form general taxation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2022 19:07:35 GMT
I don't drive or have children. By a lot of people's logic about the licence fee I should be able to opt out of tax that pays for schools and roads. Not quite because the ambulance coming to you uses your road and other roads and the paramedic was educated in the school up the road..as it were. You benefit form general taxation. I would say that one of the benefits of general taxation is that we can have a public service broadcaster that isn't beholden to the demands of advertisers and the whims of the audience. We already have loads of channels that are required to follow the dictates of the market, unable to give shows a chance to find their audience and unable to attempt anything that might threaten their income. Central government spends a million pounds every 38 seconds. What's wrong with using a tiny fraction of that to support non-commercial television and a host of other services? We don't need another ITV. |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 16, 2022 19:31:28 GMT
I don't drive or have children. By a lot of people's logic about the licence fee I should be able to opt out of tax that pays for schools and roads. What are you paying road tax for if you don't drive  |
|
5,058 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 16, 2022 19:31:47 GMT
No surprise this news comes as Boris Johnson is up the do da this week, well hello that news about illicit parties was broken by ITV News.
This news coming from Nadine Dorries who herself buggered off to Australia to play celebrity, when she should have been in parliament.
All television and entertainment in general has to be paid for somehow, what is the alternative Netflix? Apple TV? Murdoch’s Sky TV? The fact that everyone has to pay a licence is what makes it very good value, if it was subscription based it would cost probably £600-£700 a year.
Also the BBC is optional, you are not forced to have it, you just cannot own a television.
|
|
2,058 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 16, 2022 19:36:23 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 16, 2022 19:40:12 GMT
Also the BBC is optional, you are not forced to have it, you just cannot own a television. That's quite a 'just' there! |
|
1,743 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Jan 16, 2022 19:42:54 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke. That was the government who took that away, not the BBC. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Jan 16, 2022 19:55:34 GMT
The licence fee is effectively an outdated, regressive tax with the heaviest burden on those with the lowest incomes, everyone being basically forced to pay (or face being harassed by licence enforcement and eventually criminal proceedings) regardless of whether they use any BBC services or not. I'd prefer it if the licence fee was rolled into other taxation instead of being separate, so it was income-adjusted in the same way as everything else. The current approach is certainly outdated, but that doesn't mean the BBC needs to become yet another purely commercial operation fighting for every penny.
This is more like it! A tax that is paid based on income rather than an annual service charge. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 16, 2022 20:30:47 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke. The Government made the pensioners pay full whack, not the BBC. The other thing to note is that people saying the BBC is a luxury are wrong. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is the importance of television. Of access to news. To those who live alone, the BBC might be their only connection with the outside world. It's 4p a day. For everything. If that's not worth fighting to save I don't know what is. |
|
5,058 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 16, 2022 20:33:43 GMT
Mock the Week is one of the best shows on television this week, I so miss it this week.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 16, 2022 21:17:47 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke. I'd hardly call Lineker a chancer. I'm not a fan personally, but he's earnt his rep and is paid a lot for a very good reason; have you tried doing that job? I have the upmost respect for anyone who can talk and keep talking coherently whilst being spoken to by different people in their ear about a different subjects; whilst navigating the topic with guests on set. To do it effectively and seamlessly is an absolute talent. People bemoan Presenters and the wages some of them command, but if you've ever seen a bad Presenter live you'd recognised the insane abilities of the good ones. Also I'd contest the whole 'not made anything of worth in decades', but it'd take me all night. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 16, 2022 21:23:12 GMT
There's a simple technical problem around this which no one seems to be talking about today. Digital Terrestrial has no mechanism for checking subscription status. If you want to close off BBC output to people who are only subscribers, a whole system of authorisation needs to be built. Not everyone has strong enough broadband to stream services, so the question is how you close BBC services to those people (the vast majority of people) who get TV through their aerial.
I think that jeopardising the funding of the BBC is dreadful, but setting that aside, I haven't seen anyone actually say how this might work practically with our current transmission system. Closing digital terrestrial and forcing everyone to get new set-top boxes or streaming boxes is going to cost a huge amount of money and disruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 16, 2022 21:29:01 GMT
There's a simple technical problem around this which no one seems to be talking about today. Digital Terrestrial has no mechanism for checking subscription status. If you want to close off BBC output to people who are only subscribers, a whole system of authorisation needs to be built. Not everyone has strong enough broadband to stream services, so the question is how you close BBC services to those people (the vast majority of people) who get TV through their aerial. I think that jeopardising the funding of the BBC is dreadful, but setting that aside, I haven't seen anyone actually say how this might work practically with our current transmission system. Closing digital terrestrial and forcing everyone to get new set-top boxes or streaming boxes is going to cost a huge amount of money and disruption. And that's before the practicalities of figuring out how you would stop people tuning into Radio 4 on the radio in their car. |
|
|
|
Post by jamie2c on Jan 16, 2022 21:35:44 GMT
There's a simple technical problem around this which no one seems to be talking about today. Digital Terrestrial has no mechanism for checking subscription status. If you want to close off BBC output to people who are only subscribers, a whole system of authorisation needs to be built. Not everyone has strong enough broadband to stream services, so the question is how you close BBC services to those people (the vast majority of people) who get TV through their aerial. I think that jeopardising the funding of the BBC is dreadful, but setting that aside, I haven't seen anyone actually say how this might work practically with our current transmission system. Closing digital terrestrial and forcing everyone to get new set-top boxes or streaming boxes is going to cost a huge amount of money and disruption. And that's before the practicalities of figuring out how you would stop people tuning into Radio 4 on the radio in their car. That is the BBCs problem, and will have to find another way to pay Gary Lineker one million pounds per year to talk about football. |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 16, 2022 21:44:51 GMT
There's a simple technical problem around this which no one seems to be talking about today. Digital Terrestrial has no mechanism for checking subscription status. If you want to close off BBC output to people who are only subscribers, a whole system of authorisation needs to be built. Not everyone has strong enough broadband to stream services, so the question is how you close BBC services to those people (the vast majority of people) who get TV through their aerial. I think that jeopardising the funding of the BBC is dreadful, but setting that aside, I haven't seen anyone actually say how this might work practically with our current transmission system. Closing digital terrestrial and forcing everyone to get new set-top boxes or streaming boxes is going to cost a huge amount of money and disruption. Fairly simple. BBC has been moving to focus on it's online platform over the last few years. Terrestrial will filter away as the growth and appetite for 'On Demand' continues to rise exponentially. Ofcom are always looking for more ways to sell more bandwidth to telecoms so by reducing the channels transmitted on TV/Radio and BBC moving to primarily online delivery, everybody (in the business) wins. My prediction is you'll get terrestrial BBC1/2 and probably 3 radio stations on the air waves. Everything else will be online which requires a login with your BBC ID (already a thing), which will need an active subscription for access to all content. iPlayer (with BBC1/2/3/4 + on demand), BBC News* website, BBC Sport website, BBC Sounds, CBBC, all of it will require you to login. Every TV made in the last decade is 'smart' and can download apps like iPlayer, HDMI dongles like Fire sticks/Chromecast give you access to all the apps too. Fundamentally BBC will have to scale back and offer less as well to navigate this. It feels a bit like the start of that weird period between where CDs were the norm and when people in their masses started adopting platforms like Spotify etc. There will be resistance but it'll happen. *News may well stay free to access or at least throttled where a login gives you the full article etc like most outlets currently. |
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Jan 16, 2022 22:23:25 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke. The Government made the pensioners pay full whack, not the BBC. The other thing to note is that people saying the BBC is a luxury are wrong. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is the importance of television. Of access to news. To those who live alone, the BBC might be their only connection with the outside world. It's 4p a day. For everything. If that's not worth fighting to save I don't know what is. You're out by a factor of 10, by the way. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 16, 2022 23:28:15 GMT
That is the BBCs problem, and will have to find another way to pay Gary Lineker one million pounds per year to talk about football. I'd say it's the Government's problem when they tell pensioners that they have to get broadband, start paying a new subscription and buy new set-top boxes to watch Call The Midwife or Bargain Hunt. If the BBC goes subscription, that closes down the whole Freeview network (which they maintain), so that stops free viewing of ITV, Channels 4 and 5 through an aerial. og suggested that "BBC1, BBC2 and 3 radio stations" will remain on the airwaves - well, that's what most people watch and listen to, so the subscription revenue from BBC Alba, S4C, Radio Cymru and the Asian Network will be tiny. So both the minority interests which only the BBC serves will vanish, and they won't have the revenue to support their existing output from that subscription revenue. Suggesting that News "may well stay free to access" is a pipe-dream when the BBC's income is going to collapse - BBC News is not going to exist in a way that can sustain a 24-hour news channel or regional broadcasts. Anyway, it's clear that the culture battle lines are already drawn and I know which side I'm on, all I'm saying is that there are a whole host of technical issues that make this far from straightforward. I have a Smart TV and all the streaming services, but sometimes on message boards like this, people underestimate the friction that might be caused to some of the more vulnerable members of our society, whom Nadine Dorries claims to be protecting (having removed their free access to BBC services) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2022 23:34:13 GMT
I don’t think it will happen.
The commercial TV industry never really recovered from the 2007/08 recession. All anyone wants to make is a cheap and cheerful TV show, and that is why we have had an absolute onslaught of reality TV over the years from every commercial TV station.
If the BBC must move towards a commercial arrangement with advertisements, it isn’t going to access an untapped revenue stream - it’s going to move into an overcrowded market. Does anyone really think ITV would ever be happy about that?
The alternatives aren’t really viable and I think that is where the government is going to come unstuck with this. Asking it to move to a subscription model is all very well but it’s completely impractical - the iPlayer remains first and foremost a catch-up service, and you can’t expect the BBC to use licence fee funds to create content that will only be shown behind a paywall (which is the only way to do it, otherwise where does the BBC get money to create content for a subscription service?)
Whatever the way forward, the licence fee isn’t going anywhere - how the BBC is funded might change, but whatever happens will need to be done gradually over many years.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 17, 2022 8:47:02 GMT
That is the BBCs problem, and will have to find another way to pay Gary Lineker one million pounds per year to talk about football. I'd say it's the Government's problem when they tell pensioners that they have to get broadband, start paying a new subscription and buy new set-top boxes to watch Call The Midwife or Bargain Hunt. If the BBC goes subscription, that closes down the whole Freeview network (which they maintain), so that stops free viewing of ITV, Channels 4 and 5 through an aerial. og suggested that "BBC1, BBC2 and 3 radio stations" will remain on the airwaves - well, that's what most people watch and listen to, so the subscription revenue from BBC Alba, S4C, Radio Cymru and the Asian Network will be tiny. So both the minority interests which only the BBC serves will vanish, and they won't have the revenue to support their existing output from that subscription revenue. Suggesting that News "may well stay free to access" is a pipe-dream when the BBC's income is going to collapse - BBC News is not going to exist in a way that can sustain a 24-hour news channel or regional broadcasts.Anyway, it's clear that the culture battle lines are already drawn and I know which side I'm on, all I'm saying is that there are a whole host of technical issues that make this far from straightforward. I have a Smart TV and all the streaming services, but sometimes on message boards like this, people underestimate the friction that might be caused to some of the more vulnerable members of our society, whom Nadine Dorries claims to be protecting (having removed their free access to BBC services) I think you're forgetting about the global reach and influence of BBC World news. Outside of the UK BBC is very widely respected and has alot of weight. For sure the regional aspects will crumble, which isn't necessarily a bad thing imo. Red Button may well cease output also. Sport for example will be able to adapt quite easily. Full event/fixture coverage will go behind the subscription, select highlights on terrestrial. Where the difficulty arises is contracts like FA Cup which require a proportion to be available on free to air. Conversely it has the potential to put the BBC back in the game to bid for more coverage like Olympics. In terms of being in the interests of the more 'vulnerable members of society', in a decades time when this is all implemented, they'll be a generation older, most moved on. How many people watch on a black and white CRT now? |
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Jan 17, 2022 8:48:49 GMT
I don’t think it will happen. The commercial TV industry never really recovered from the 2007/08 recession. All anyone wants to make is a cheap and cheerful TV show, and that is why we have had an absolute onslaught of reality TV over the years from every commercial TV station. If the BBC must move towards a commercial arrangement with advertisements, it isn’t going to access an untapped revenue stream - it’s going to move into an overcrowded market. Does anyone really think ITV would ever be happy about that? The alternatives aren’t really viable and I think that is where the government is going to come unstuck with this. Asking it to move to a subscription model is all very well but it’s completely impractical - the iPlayer remains first and foremost a catch-up service, and you can’t expect the BBC to use licence fee funds to create content that will only be shown behind a paywall (which is the only way to do it, otherwise where does the BBC get money to create content for a subscription service?) Whatever the way forward, the licence fee isn’t going anywhere - how the BBC is funded might change, but whatever happens will need to be done gradually over many years. All of which might be relevant if we had a government which cared about practicality or reality. |
|
