Forum menu
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.
[quote=scotroutes ]Funny how nobody mentions that you can choose to pay a subscription for Sky, but you still get bombarded with adverts.
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.
[url=
reminder of what the BBc has done. [/url]
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 😆
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.
[quote=Northwind ]
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?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!
[quote=myti ]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.
[quote=Junkyard ]What radio station can you "subscribe to "?
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
I've been around a bit over the years and I'm yet to find anything close to the BBC for quality and content.
Great value IMO
Has anyone an example of a country that has a better system resulting in better TV and radio?
The technology is there to make it pay per view/encrypted, if its as good as everyone on here thinks it would soon recoup its money and more.
You could also setup up 'bundles' so people could pay for the services they actually want to use as opposed to subsidizing content they don't, my point being that the BBC is probably got to bloated in terms of content, how many TV channels does it actually need, I would say 2 were sufficient to cover a wide base of interests?
Ensuring that minority interests are covered could still fall in that scope, I mean with iPlayer content is generally available 24/7 so doesn't have to have dedicated channel just for specific content.
Using pay services would also mean that those who currently get it free (i.e. Ireland, parts of Europe etc) could also contribute to its coffers.
With the change in how people now watch TV it would make sense to attempt to commercialize the on-line aspects, in fact it would be interesting to see the breakdown in how the BBC gets its money i.e. general license fee against on-line/overseas sales?
For better examples, people make the US TV but in the last 10-15 years its drama and comedy output has far outweighed the UK's (sad to say).
There is some great US TV
The down side with watching it in the US is the almost continuos 'male erectile problem' adverts that show every 10 minutes.
I'm another firmly in the 'cherish it' camp.
I do wonder if they should just concentrate on national broadcast services though, and leave any regional broadcast TV and radio to the commercial stations. I'm sure it's a considerable expense and for most (sweeping assumption) people it's becoming less and less needed/valued.
Can we open this thread up to give some thought to what YOU would change or cut or indeed improve..
I'll start..
Pull out of Salford. I'm sick of all this Northern Bias 😆 Everyone they interview these days is either from Sheffield or Liverpool or Manchester.
Bring in regional Dialect interpretors 😆
Pull BBC 3 (I know it's for the chop) and make the Head of BBC at the time of it's inception pay back all the wasted money *cough* invested in what is a crap channel.
Get rid of that "sports" bloke on BBC News Mike Bushell (It's all about ME! don't you know) 🙄
Cut BBC Local News. It's Ok folks I don;t really want to know about traffic jams nor how many Bus drivers we "need"
Make Radio 1 subscription and Internet only.
Get rid of Steve "it's also all about ME!" Wright off Radio 2 and his cronies,
All the support crew and producers that manage the above and I reckon I've saved about £14bn.
😀
Yeah, lets privatise the BBC! After all its worked out so well with utilities/trains/care/prisons/hospitals/royal mail. Oh...
What the BBC does that subscription channels don't, is provide huge breadth. Take away the license fee and the range of output will drop dramatically.
More importantly, once you privatise the BBC you can't go back. It's not like a rail franchise you can take back after the contract ends. We can't do that to future generations.
Stoner - Member
It's the single most regressive tax in the UK. There's nothing else like it.
The lottery is worse.
if its as good as everyone on here thinks it would soon recoup its money and more.
No it wont it will clearly lose money if it is subscription/fee based and there is no method to subscribe to a radio station for example* . Digital TV was essentially bankrolled by the Beeb when the commercial sector failed for example and they were heavily involved in digital roll out.
Some things need to be state provided to deliver scope and "social goals" as the private sector only deliver what it can make money from- ie operates only for the benefit of its shareholders not stakeholders. The funding method gives it scope to deliver things the commercial sector cannot.
I also never knew how many of you right wing folk here were so committed to redistributive taxation and fairness. Commendable 😉
I would not object to it being funded by direct taxation to remove the regressive nature of the flat rate fee but i doubt that is what was meant
* I think its nature also keeps wages down - i know some are very high- but some of the BBC top stars could earn more if they moved to commercial stations but they stay because they care and /or prestige.
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.
Northwind
Why?
scotroutes - Member
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.
You know, I had interpreted Northwind as asking why Public Service Broadcasting should be put out to tender, not why Public Service Broadcasting should be a thing.
You know, I had interpreted Northwind as asking why Public Service Broadcasting should be put out to tender, not why Public Service Broadcasting should be a thing.
And the irony being that it already is put out to tender.
I can't remeber what the %s are but a significant proportion of BBC programming is made by the private sector and BBC production units have to compete with their private rivals for a lot of stuff.
The BBC do do stuff in house but like every other channel that shows original programming they are primarily a commisioning body. It's just the shows they commision are done purely on a ROI basis like a comercial channel.
Spot the difference between the recent BBC and C4 coverage around diet and weight loss. The BBC covered and important scientific study that shows different people respond to diets in a different way, followed it up with an online story and tool for you to use. C4 just roll out endless "point and laugh" at the fatties programs where they came up with the name of the show before the content.
Laughing at fatties can be entertaining but it isn't in a publlic service.
The BBC should move towards the Netflix/Amazon type of subscription service.
rene59 - Member
The BBC should move towards the Netflix/Amazon type of subscription service.
Any reasoning? As new and shiny as the netflix/amazon service is how does it provide a public service? How does it provide minority interest programs, cater for low demand?
Pay to View leads to populist offerings.
Almost everything they offer are repeats/shows done elsewhere with almost zero commissioning....is sky not the same [ aware they have recently done some new stuff]
Not sure how another one helps tbh.
mikewsmith - MemberPay to View leads to populist offerings.
While I don't disagree with your general point, tell this to HBO.
[quote=bikebouy ]Pull BBC 3
How will I get my fix of Family Guy and American Dad?