BBC News is independent and unbiased (as much as is possible). This keeps Sky etc in line and they in turn, stay pretty unbiased to compete.

This is rubbish, all UK broadcasters are required to be unbiased in News by Ofcom otherwise they sanctioned. Russia Today has been threatened – see here

Keep it and also charge those who watch iplayer on their tablets, laptops etc. six television channels, six radio stations that include R4 R6 Music and R4 Extra not forgetting R5. All this and no adverts, I would pay more.

Wolf Hall was absoulutely fantastic as a piece of drama. I have no doubt someone else has the completely opposite view re. Mrs. Brown’s Boys. Fair enough, both of us enjoyed something. That’s how public service broadcasting should work.

[quote]
Haven’t seen Wolf Hall and can’t stand MBB but I totally agree. They should be spending the licence fee on original dramas, comedies, documentaries, quality childrens’ programs, etc as well as news/current affairs – not shit like Bargain Hunt, quiz/reality/talent shows and imported tv series/films (except in exceptional circumstances). [/quote]

Agree almost entirely (I like MBB and haven’t watched Wolfhall).

I think they should avoid bidding for major sporting events though, I know some fans really like some commentators, but is there really any need for a bidding war between ITV and the Beeb over stuff like the Olympics? If there was a danger of some sports getting no coverage at all (track cycling), not being really suited to add breaks (F1) or being entirely on Sky (Darts?) then maybe it’s justified, but there’s no reason to even bid on the World cup etc is there?.

And some drama bought in probably wouldnt get shown in the UK except on the beeb (the Bridge, the killing etc) as they just don’t get big enough audiences.

And some drama bought in probably wouldnt get shown in the UK except on the beeb (the Bridge, the killing etc) as they just don’t get big enough audiences.

ITV3 showed “Those who kill”, the very good Irish series “Love/Hate” was on Channel 5, I am sure there are more. Buying foreign series is much cheaper than producing your own on the whole and they all have a lots of channels to fill.

It should move to a subscription-based model. The “You might have a TV so we’ll threaten you until you give us some money” system is antiquated and annoying. I’d happily pay a fee for Radio 4, but that’s about the only BBC content I use. The news is middling to bad, the TV shows are generally middling to awful with the occasional gem.

I’d happily pay a fee for Radio 4

How would that be enforced beyond “You might have a radio so we’ll threaten you until you give us some money”?

Would you be happy to replace all your radios with new ones that accepted subscription cards?

The main problem with the licence fee is that a lot of people use BBC services without paying anything for them. Paying it from general taxation seems logical to me, spread that burden. I’m not as much a fan of the BBC as I once was but on balance it’s still a good thing.

scotroutes – Member

If we really want some form of Public Service Broadcasting then it should be fully costed, fully funded and farmed out via competitive tender.

Why?

“and so apart from a few grumpy old buggers who dont watch TV lest their minds are warped by lizardnews, and another couple of dozen with de-tuned TVs, a pile of DVDs and claim that they only watch stuff on iplayer,“

I resemble that remark!
Haven’t paid it, or watched live TV for 5 years now.

BTW no one seems to have mentioned that the license the BBC holds and collects money for has nothing to do with content – that’s covered separately in the BBC charter – its for the right to watch live TV content of any description from any provider on any equipment within the UK. This is why the ‘but I only watch ITV/SKY/C4 etc’ argument against paying doesn’t work in law. Which, if you think about it is very antiquated. Hence also why many people living abroad get the benefits for free – the BBC has no similar remit in Holland for instance yet broadcasts there. Crazy.

How would that be enforced beyond “You might have a radio so we’ll threaten you until you give us some money”?

Giant faraday cages dropped over any houses that don’t have a license?

For me the regressive nature of the TV licence is the strongest argument against it. It’s not surprising however that STW has a good lot of “I’d happily pay more” types given we tend to be a middle class lot and often have the disposable income to afford multiple expensive bikes. 🙂 Compared to the average price of the bikes showed off on this forum the licence fee is chump change. (I’m not excluding myself from that generalisation, BTW!)

On the other hand, one alternative funding mentioned in the BBC article was a compulsory levy applied to all households. While it solves the oddity of people who only access the BBC through things like iPlayer not needing to pay anything towards the cost of those services it hardly seems like a progressive step forward.

Funding the BBC through taxation sounds more promising but some problems with that idea have already been stated in this thread, e.g. more political pressure on the BBC as politicians have a tighter control on its income, and the risk of “hospital beds vs BBC funding” arguments being further used to attack it.

Personally, I’m not sure what the solution is. It may end up being the case that the licence fee is one of those typically British less than ideal bodges that end up sticking around because they are the least worst solution anyone’s managed to think of. That’s probably why it’s survived this long already.

he BBC has no similar remit in Holland for instance yet broadcasts there

No it does not broadcast in Holland. It can be received in Holland (or at least some parts). There is no responsibility for the BBC to support a signal there. But to get it as part of you cable/satellite package I thought you had to pay for as in the Republic of Ireland.

Of course if the Government stopped getting the licence to fund Government activities it would help. The licence fee has to fund the BBC World Service, which used to be funded by the FCO, the fee has funded the move to digital, the fee has funded the retuning of TVs/VCR when C5 came along. None of those are BBC core activities.

I’d be happy for a reduced fee and let the BBC subsidise themselves by introducing Adverts and of course cutting Programming back and also offering subscription services only.
So long as they don’t cut BBC 4 and Radio 4 I’ll be fine.

So out of the two ways you can choose to pay to watch live TV, it’s only the far more expensive one which pays for a broadcaster who still intersperses their programming with adverts. Good point, well made.

I would happily pay the licence fee for Radio 4 alone. I listen to around 8 hours a week which multiplied over the year is an absolute bargain.

The BBC is a classic case of you won’t appreciate just how good it is until it’s gone.

A reminder of what the BBc has done.

The BBC can kiss my peachy little arse. Can’t stand the bias that their news reporting shows, or the antiquated lavish lifestyle of some of the employees that it sustains. I don’t pay for a license any more.

Oh, and their sports coverage is a string of montages, shown instead of actual competitors. I’m thinking athletics here. Example -long jump, I want to see all the athletes jumps, the Ugandan girl that finishes 7th, the no jump that the 4th place athlete took etc. not just the brit athletes jumps plus the winners jumps. It’s useless. When ch4 used to cover it they were much better. The BBC would have you believe that events comprise entirely of British competitors. It’s awful.

Oh, and their sports coverage is a string of montages

Stop watching the highlights and watch the main program maybe ?

Yip C4 are much better than the BBC at covering sport 😆

Ortis Deley axed from Channel 4’s athletics coverage after gaffes

The only problem with the licence fee is the lack of enforcement.

The sense of entitlement shown by the parasites and spongers who regard the fee as optional whilst using BBC services is breathtaking.

I class non payment the same as I class benefit fraud or tax evasion.

footflaps – Member
BBC News is independent and unbiased (as much as is possible). This keeps Sky etc in line and they in t

About half the population of Scotland would disagree with that.

The fee should be dumped. We shouldn’t have to pay for a state propaganda service.

Why?[/quote]Because some folk think Public Service Broadcasting is still a thing. Personally, I reckon it reached a peak with the Green Cross Code man and has never got back even to the dizzy heights of the Royal Observer Corps ads.
I’m sure that even the most avid TV watcher/radio listener doesn’t need umpteen channels of PSB at a cost of £4.7Bn per year.

3 quid a week? Outstanding value, I’d happily pay more. Where do we sign?

Bbc is our viewing of choice here in Germany. Its way better than anything terrestrial. No sky or Netflix subs, just UK stuff via a clever bit of software.

I think the BBC produces a lot of good content. However the news coverage in Scotland particularly is very patchy due to a lack of resources. What coverage there is is often unquestioning and biased. For that reason I no longer pay the licence and don’t watch “live tv”

For that reason I no longer pay the licence and don’t watch “live tv”

But you’ll happily watch stuff on iPlayer? Read the BBC news website? Maybe listen to BBC radio?

I would happily pay the licence fee for Radio 4 alone. I listen to around 8 hours a week which multiplied over the year is an absolute bargain.

The BBC is a classic case of you won’t appreciate just how good it is until it’s gone
THIS

It has its moments where it lets you down but overall it is fantastic value for money and the range of programmes, and overall content across various platforms, is a joy to behold.

The BBC is the safest place the country has to keep dangerous, over-educated Left wingers from doing any real damage.

Indeed imagine what a left winger like Clarkson would get up to were it not for the BBC

For what its worth I don’t rate the news website and therefore don’t use it the only radio stations I can receive are Radio Scotland/Radio Nan Gaidheal and Radio 4 so there’s no alternative to BBC radio but still don’t rate the news coverage with the possible exception of Radio4 which I listen once or twice a week. Yes I watch maybe one or two programmes per week on iplayer. Once they bring that into the licence fee I’ll have to pay up if BBC Scotland has radially improved its news coverage or stop using iplayer if they have not. My issue is not the expense or even the regressive nature of the licence fee. It is the poor service in what I see as the most important function of the BBC

Indeed imagine what a left winger like Clarkson would get up to were it not for the BBC

Hes a plant JY, all part of the bigger plan, why do you think they moved to Salford ?

Stoner – Member
It’s the single most regressive tax in the UK. There’s nothing else like it.

Football?

At least there are some things where paying to avoid the ads makes sense!!!! Although reeves v Schapps on QT tonight may make me change my mind.

I’d pay it just for the radio stations alone…radio 4/6 music are my constant companions!

And here’s the thing. If they did away with the license fee, you’d still have the option of subscribing to that service 😆

And here’s the thing. If they did away with the license fee, you’d still have the option of subscribing to that service

Really or would the less commercial stuff just be canned, would 6 music have existed if the BBC was not funded the way it is?

What radio station can you “subscribe to “?

Surely it would depend on how much/many people were willing to pay for it. There’s myti up there happy to pay £145 a year just for two radio stations.

Here’s one
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/uks-first-subscriptiononly-radio-station-launches-with-comedians-like-richard-herring-aboard–and-its-promising-to-be-completely-uncensored-9150184.html

I think you mean only one rather than one but I have not googled.

Fubar Live is being made available for download on iOS via the App Store, with an Android app following next month. The station promises to be advertisement free.

IMHO if you cannot get it via a radio I dont think you can call it a radio show.

Surely it would depend on how much/many people were willing to pay for it. There’s myti up there happy to pay £145 a year just for two radio stations.

OK so a what you are willing to pay system, honesty box type thing. Hard to set a pricing structure and that sort of thing limits future developments to “What will people pay for” part of the appeal of the BBC is the ability to try and do things that may not be considered commercially viable but are valuable in many other ways.
Living in somewhere that has a smaller scale national broadcasted that is getting the same hammering as the BBC (mostly coming from a number of large media organisations operated by Rupert the Media Baron – no conflict of interest there) the value of a non commercial, non ad chasing broadcaster that does not need to follow the political lead/whims of it’s shareholder/owner is a refreshing change.

Stoner – Member
It’s the single most regressive tax in the UK. There’s nothing else like it.

This is absolutely true, but it is also pretty much the only “service” that caters to “taste” rather than “need”. It doesn’t absolutely obviously fit into the paradigm of “from each according to means, to each according to need”.

I’m not completely sure that a shared platform for culture that is accessible to everyone would be improved if higher rate taxpayers felt that they could claim that they contributed more to the BBC and therefore it should give them more than it gave those who contribute less.

That may be the start of an answer to the objection, anyway. 🙂

Have the bbc suffered massive cuts recently?

I have been hanging out with a R4/6 listener of late, and so have got into the habit of turning on R4 when I’m in the kitchen..

Eeerrr… is it just me or is it almost utterly moronic?
I thought it was aimed at the more intellectual audience but it’s bafflingly repetitive and about as informative and thought provoking as R1 just without all the crap music