[Closed] Would you pay a subscription for BBC TV?

I've just canceled my Netflix so the BBC would have no chance.

Can I just add I don't watch it now and that's with paying for a license.

BBC TV channels (not radio, website etc)

Why this?

I know the current daft licence thingame only means you pay if you are a TV watcher, but you are still paying for the website, on demand and radio content.

I've watched circa 30mins of live TV in the last year (a couple of government covid announcements live) but thousands of hours of the radio, website and a bit of on demand TV. For me it represent great vfm as I 'think' when I shell out for the licence I am paying for all of it as I see it as a complete package.

I would not know how to answer your question as it stands.

Yes, when you factor in the radio and the news website, theBBC still makes up a sizeable chunk of the media I consume. I don't grudge the licence fee at all.

No problem whatsoever paying the licence fee, I think it's ridiculously good value for money.

I guess it depends what you want to watch and what you think "good" is.

In the last week or two I have watched Question Time, Darren McGarvey's Class Wars, two Storyvilles, documentaries on (what was) the Forestry Commission, Landward, The Place Beyond The Pines, University Challenge, Newsnight, The Nine (Scottish news), Only Connect, a Rose Matafeo standup, a Romesh Ranganathan programme and no doubt some other bits and pieces.

I really should get out more.

But we can't!

Netflix has a few reasonable things, but much of it is very similar indeed.

I'm not interested in being sucked into the Amazon world.

I don't think a subscription model is the most-likely alternative to the licence fee.

More likely to be a direct grant from the government, which I think makes more sense than the licence fee anyway.

Hypothetically though, I'd pay for access to the BBC's audio (and possibly online) output but I don't watch much of it on TV TBH.

Short answer, no. We do already have a choice though.

As a 'younger' person I've never paid for a TV license. Never been a point -Netflix is cheaper

Yeah, I know, we already do. But not by choice

Yes it is. No one forces you to have a television
.
.
And no, I wouldn't, but that's because I don't have TV. I do listen to a lot of BBC radio though. Would I pay for that? Yes, if I had to. I have no spotify or other subscription services but I would pay for radio4, world service etc if I had to to get them. The current system suits me just fine though 😁

Yes it is. No one forces you to have a television

You can also have a television and not BBC

No and cancelled my license last year. I'd like to see it disappear completely.

Well I already do and perfectly happy to continue.

I'd like it to remain "independant" from the whims of any particular government.

It's a difficult one, isn't it.

The days of the TV licence as it stands is surely numbered, people just don't watch TV in the same way any more. But the number of households who don't have a licence is surprisingly low still. If the BBC were to move to an ads & subscription model, would that actually net them more funding?

There's some stats here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8101/

Almost all households have a TV and almost all TV owners have a licence. They'd have to sell a lot of high-value advertising to make up the shortfall if it became optional.

Part of the problem is it's too fragmented. You're paying for Virgin and Netflix and Disney+ and Amazon Prime and... you want me to pay another ten quid a month to watch Doctor Who, Planet Earth and Eastenders? Maybe the way forward would be to have BBC services bundled with existing packages like Sky?

I would pay for the BBC before anything else.

I think the website and radio content is outstanding

The reason I asked about paying for TV only of that it is the most direct comparison to Netflix and I’m interested to know if people value the tv output

Absolutely, yes, no hesitation. It's worth it for BBC Radio and the websites alone.
No TMS? Come on, that alone is worth £160 a year.
We have Netflix and it's fine, but not a patch of the BBC output.

Maybe the way forward would be to have BBC services bundled with existing packages like Sky?

The problem with that is that the big ticket players like Attenborough and Strictly would still get their programs made and everyone would point and say "ooh, look, It's just the same."

It wouldn't be though. It's all the niche stuff that not enough people would pay for but is still excellent that'd disappear forever. The stuff that only the BBC still makes.

Yes, but then I'd expect it would be bundled with my Sky subscription (which would no doubt go up as I'm paying for the BBC & Channel 4 through the license fee).

I do think they are in for a bit of a shock though if it becomes optional. I think a lot of people will drop it. Need to make more of their back catalogue available as well. Also can't go up too much current fees feel about right for the content and are more than Netflix or Disney. Get greedy and I can see a lot of people turning off. Be interesting to see how the content changes, they will need to pick demographics and stick to them, trying to cover too much will mean they appeal to no one enough to pay.

It amazes me every now and again iPlayer asks you if you have a license, a simple yes is all that's needed, very British.

Given I already fork out for Sky Q, Netflix, Prime, Disney+ and AppleTV+ part of me says I'm not wasting any more money on TV stuff but in reality I'd probably be willing to pay £5-10 a month. I'm sure it would change radically (and mostly not for the better) if it went to a commercial subscription model though

Less bothered about the TV side of things as that is covered by many other sources now creating really good content.

The radio side I would really miss though as commercial radio drives me insane.

I wouldn't. About 99% of the programs are crap, the news is okay but I would rather watch Channel 4 news in the evening and I get news from other sources in the day.

I have a TV licence because I watch other channels.

Yeah, I'd pay to support BBC, sacked off Netflix and BT sport last year as they just didn't offer enough diversity for me. So licence fee plus cheapest bt TV is all I pay for.

I would happily pay a radio licence, also I can't believe BBC podcasts are free to download.

I stopped watching live TV in 2012, digital reception was so bad I couldn't watch in the rain so ended up watching everything on streaming channels. I cancelled the fee at the same time as it wasn't required and took down the useless aerial. I did occasionally watch the iplayer until the law changed. At that point I didn't even have a TV aerial so when the licence extended to cover iplayer I had a simple choice, pay ~£14 a month for iplayer or not watch BBC output. I've not missed it at all.

At over double the price of Netflix, prime etc I don't think the BBC is good value at all.

However, access to just the iplayer for a sensible price and perhaps I'd pay.

I would pay for the BBC before anything else.

This is what I was going to say. If it was pay to view, it is the first I would pay for, and the last I would unsubscribe from... but there have been times in my life where I wouldn't subscribe to anything, but did keep paying the license fee. That time could come again. Making the BBC optional would hit the number paying greatly... so does that mean it would cost individuals more than it does now, or that it would be a substantial funding cut? And then what gets cut... the things the most people would pay for? The highest rating content? The stuff that other outlets don't do? Regional content? Content with a limited but otherwise poorly serviced audience? Switching to a pay to view BBC would have to be paired with a complete transformation of what it is and does, and for who.

Quite happily. Their TV and radio production still dominates my viewing and listening

I had a simple choice, pay ~£14 a month for iplayer or not watch BBC output. I’ve not missed it at all.

I don't really blame you, but do you listen to BBC Radio or podcasts at all?

Would you pay a subscription for BBC TV?

If it was one on the eye for Johnson as he tries to dismantle the BBC then the answer is a unequivocal "yes" and followed by "is there any way I could pay a bit more, please".

I have no objection to folk still paying for the BBC. I just don't think I should be subsidising them. The only bit of their output I bother with is the news Web service. I'd be happy to pay an appropriate subscription for that, as I do with other Websites, though even the value of that seems to have dropped

The radio side I would really miss though as commercial radio drives me insane.

+1 this

They're also seeing the very big value of podcasts which peaks my interest and that medium is only going to get more and more popular

TV is netflix/youtube/prime for me

Haven't watched live TV (or had a licence) since about 2006. Don't really listen to BBC radio. So no, I wouldn't pay for it now, although I do recognise that the BBC does have a positive role in news coverage etc. I know that is hypocritical!

Absolutely. Wide range of commercial free programmes from Attenborough to Strictly, sports, documentaries, CBBC. Massive radio variety from radio 1 to radio 3 and the sports of 5live not to mention TMS, worth the licence fee in its own right. Then the website and iplayer and the podcasts on the Sounds app.

All for half the price of a Sky subscription with no ads.

What we pay for Netflix is close to the cost of the license fee (yes I know a basic subscription is less, but hd, family etc)

Funny how people are happy to pay for Netflix but not a similar amount for so much more.

Come to think of it, we pay more for Spotify

So yes I would pay, probably pay more too.

So yes I would pay, probably pay more too.

Great. You can pay mine too, I'll send you my bank details.

Yes if only for the radio content,I have R3 on most of the day and listen to Bruce Springsteen and Stereo underground on BBC sounds, don't watch tv content much (Only connect and the Cornish fishing thing at the moment)

A good question in all this is whether you want them to keep making programmes you're not going to watch?

Take Eastenders or Songs of Praise. I've no interest in watching either show, but I do want the BBC to keep making them, as other people get something out of them.

I find something unsavoury about this "I don't watch it therefore I shouldn't pay for it" sentiment. I've not been ill for a while, don't see why I should pay for the NHS.

Thin end of the wedge.

When a public service like the BBC is taken apart, it'll never be put back together again. Same with the NHS.

Definitely not. I haven't watched live TV in years and cannot remember the last time I payed for a tv licence. The Netflix and Prime subscriptions are far better for me as I can cancel and re-join whenever I want too. You can't do that with the TV licence. I am amazed at the amount of people who pay for the likes of netflix and prime that continue paying for the service when their not using it.

I find something unsavoury about this “I don’t watch it therefore I shouldn’t pay for it” sentiment. I’ve not been ill for a while, don’t see why I should pay for the NHS.

That quote just seems totally stupid to me comparing the NHS to the BBC. I'd personally rather see the money I pay for a TV license go towards the NHS rather than what it does go on.

And maybe somethings should be taken apart and not put back together again. If the BBC was a private company join the Jimmy Saville/sex abuse inquiry a few years ago it probably would have been taken apart.

ended up watching everything on streaming channels.
...
I had a simple choice, pay ~£14 a month for iplayer or not watch BBC output

Point of note here, if you're watching live TV streams then you still need a licence even if it's not the BBC and not on a TV. You need a licence to watch or record TV as broadcast, whatever the content or medium. If you only ever use, say, Netflix then you don't.

I don’t really blame you, but do you listen to BBC Radio or podcasts at all?

You don't need a licence for that, either.

Given there current lineup, pay per view for me. Not interested in the mainstream crap they pump out.

Sadly, the answer is probably no. Given the opportunity to vote to keep it as it is now, I would, but if it was a case of Pay to use it, I wouldn't.

Our subscription services at home have gotten out of hand:

Apple One for 3 of us £20
Virgin £40 for a Tivo we don't use and 100Mbps fibre
Netflix must be £16 a month now.
NowTV, with HD and bloody Hulu so my Son can watch the bloody Kadashiens £15
Disney+ £7

I live with it because I know if I suddenly couldn't afford them anymore, I can cancel them and well like it or not, TV has been a big part of our lives this last year.

I think the BBC puts out a lot of very good quality content, but very little of it actually appeals to me.

I don't listen to BBC Radio I rarely watch BBC TV the few things they make I really like are really good, but being a bit mercenary, most of it arrives on Netflix within months.

Their News / Website is good, but with Dacre becoming the Chair of Ofcom and the Tories cutting the free license fee for OAPs AND blaming the BBC for it, I can't see it staying that way.

I'm not sure what the 'Beeb' can do to keep things as they are, making the license fee optional would mean huge cuts, massive, they can't keep making millions of hours of content a year for everyone, they'd have to focus on what makes money. Frankly their best hope is to weather the storm until the Tories lose a GE, hopefully the next one.

I find something unsavoury about this “I don’t watch it therefore I shouldn’t pay for it” sentiment.

It's all a bit brexity, isn't it. I'm alright jack, bollocks to the rest of you.

That quote just seems totally stupid to me comparing the NHS to the BBC.

I don't think that's what they were doing, rather holding up a mirror to attitudes. Council tax might be a better example, if people could pick and choose which services the various percentages of their contribution went towards it'd be a shitshow.

No, I used to kind of, because I live in Germany for a few years I paid for a VPN to access it, but there was so little on it I was interested in that I stopped and haven't missed it.

Other subscriptions I tend to run just one at a time for a 2 or 3 months, watch everything that interests me, then move to another.

Given there current lineup, pay per view for me

The problem there is that people will immediately go "four quid to watch the new season of Strictly? Screw that, I'll torrent it." Then next year everyone will be whining / shocked because the BBC's stopped making it. Do you want the BBC to produce shows which are of high quality, or which are profitable?

It’s all a bit brexity, isn’t it.

I think the support of the BBC is more for the gammons, based on the myth of British exceptionalism, while in reality there is really very little quality programming on the bbeb.

I think the support of the BBC is more for the gammons, based on the myth of British exceptionalism

I'm sorry, but you really aren't paying attention.

I wouldn’t and I don’t (no license)

However I watch very little TV (Netflix does me fine and has the nature-related BBC documentaries anyway) and get my podcasts/music through Spotify

If I spent more time at home or had kids I would though, if you use it it’s probably worth it

As an aside I don’t like the broadcast model and prefer the on demand model because I’ll only watch something if I want to, not just sit in front of back to back episodes of homes under the hammer because it’s on. But that probably says more about my self control than the BBC 😁

I consume so much BBC content, broadcast TV and radio, plus iPlayer, every day of the week - I have no problem with the licence fee and if it changed to a subscription model instead I'd happily pay for that

I also have access to Netflix, but rarely watch anything on it, the main problem with all these subscription services is they only have a limited selection of content to choose from. It's a bit like going into Blockbuster back in the day, but only being allowed to rent films from selected shelves in the store

I never watch live TV, and haven't for around 5 years.
Still pay for the TV license though, well worth it for the TV/Radio/Kids Online stuff etc etc.

I happily pay the License Fee for two very simple reasons:

1: I regularly find programmes to watch on the iPlayer that other channels and providers just wouldn't make, usually some niche interest or a documentary. Usually one a week as a minimum but sometimes I can find more in one sitting than I would in a month on my Prime subscription (I have it for the delivery, the TV stuff is basically a freebie).
2: Having the BBC helps keep the quality of other channels up. You may not like Eastenders, Strictly or even the nature documentaries but they mean that the commercial channels have to make their offerings as good or better to get eyeballs on their adverts. Without this 'quality check' the BBC provides then we could easily end up with TV like the US. We may love the shows we get over here that they make but they are the quality stuff they make, the vast majority of US output is dire and can help spread misinformation and enforce stereotypes, racial bias etc. Our TV output is nowhere near perfect but without the BBC providing a certain standard the commercial stuff will only go one way: down.

I don't actually watch that much TV on the whole but I can still see the value the BBC brings.

The problem there is that people will immediately go “four quid to watch the new season of Strictly? Screw that, I’ll torrent it.” Then next year everyone will be whining / shocked because the BBC’s stopped making it. Do you want the BBC to produce shows which are of high quality, or which are profitable?

Strictly? High Quality?

We did a zoom quiz at Christmas with the extended family. One of the rounds of questions was on dances from strictly. I was very proud that neither me, nor my wife, nor my three kids could answer a single question correctly as we have never watched it. The rest of my family looked at us like we were freaks.

we have never watched it.

A poor position from which to make pronouncements regarding the quality.

Would happily pay for the programmes and radio if they were split from the news.
Between Laura Kuenssberg acting as Johnson's personal spokesperson and Tim Davie being in the pocket of the Conservatives I no longer want my money funding that.

I would pay for the BBC before anything else

This

Channel4 news all the way. But the BBC is far more than news (for now).

Without this ‘quality check’ the BBC provides then we could easily end up with TV like the US

That's an argument I've not heard before, suspect it has an element of truth in it.

There do seem to be a lot of people complaining about something they haven't tried for years.

I would pay for the radio content as I can't imagine life without radio 4. Tv i could take or leave although i do love a bit of Simon Reeve or Rick Stein.

TV with advertising in it......this is going to sound sooooo middle class!

I binge watched It's a Sin the other day Channel 4 on demand with adverts in it. First time in as long as I can remember when I've had to sit through adverts as everything we watch normally is Prime/Netflix/Now or a smattering of Iplayer. Felt bloody weird . Then it felt like someone was wasting my time.

Given the option of paying a subscription or having 20mins of my evening wasted watching adverts it would be the paid for subscription every time. My leisure time is too precious to me.

Given the option of paying a subscription or having 20mins of my evening wasted watching adverts it would be the paid for subscription every time

Don't get Sky then.

The most expensive subscription I pay, with the most adverts.

That's the real scandal here.

In the last week or two I have watched Question Time, Darren McGarvey’s Class Wars, two Storyvilles, documentaries on (what was) the Forestry Commission, Landward, The Place Beyond The Pines, University Challenge, Newsnight, The Nine (Scottish news), Only Connect, a Rose Matafeo standup, a Romesh Ranganathan programme and no doubt some other bits and pieces.

Tricky one. I can't imagine myself watching any of that dross. The news is getting more and more like North Korea every day, but there are some good dramas and occasionally journalism that goes across the grain - Americast, Jeremy Bowen.

I'd definitely pay for Ch 4; BBC... not sure.

we could easily end up with TV like the US

Braeking Bad, The Wire, Sopranos, Stranger Things, Big Little Lies, etc etc ...

What actually is the deal with owing the BBC a living though? I use Spotify and really rate the service but I’m not going to suggest people who don’t use it should pay for it.

All the arguments seem to be just saying in one way or another ‘yeah but it’s a great service’ I’m sure it is so surely they have a large enough customer base to pay for it right? That’s kinda how capitalism works

Agreed that Sky is the scam though, I know people who pay £100 a month for it and one when threatening to leave got a discount of almost half

No I wouldn’t pay for it if I had the choice.

It is now just a government communications channel with some somec to keep the proles happy.

Perhaps Bojo, Gove et al want to make the U.K. Oceania and the BBC is their propaganda channel and the majority are happy to pay for the privilege.

Don't have a TV license and don't watch TV. Pay for Netflix though.

No interest in giving the BBC any money.

I’d like it to remain “independant” from the whims of any particular government.

Time was when a government of any colour hated the BBC as they were always anti-government. Which in my opinion is as it should be.

Would I pay a subscription? Providing it's no more than the licence fee probably yes. If I could subscribe to individual channels at lower cost then, BBC2, BBC4 and Radio3 please.

The news is getting more and more like North Korea every day,

It really, really isn't as bad as you think it is.

It is now just a government communications channel with some somec to keep the proles happy.

Perhaps Bojo, Gove et al want to make the U.K. Oceania and the BBC is their propaganda channel and the majority are happy to pay for the privilege.

This, very much so. All I've missed since ditching the license is BBC4 but there's more than enough world drama on All4.

The BBC is one of only two remaining 'nationalised industries' within the UK and is well overdue for demolition. Also, I strongly object to Capita being in charge of licensing. Can you believe that after cancelling a letter arrived acknowledging and telling me that I had to inform them of any change of address. Regardless of whether or not I had a license. WTF.

Meanwhile, I await visits from the Capita thugs. Should be fun.

I'd be interested in different levels of service.

I know not everything will be to everyone's taste so I don't mind that. But I'd separate out sport, for example. I don't know what they spend on football but things like that any many other sports are of no interest.
Do channel 4 get any central budget? They manage to make some very good programs. I'm using 4s on demand service more than iplayer right now. Rarely watch live stuff - either catchup or tivo.

It really, really isn’t as bad as you think it is.

It really is. When are they going to lead with Hancock's corrupt contracts the same way they are leading with Salmon -Sturgeon, to mention just the latest example?

It is now just a government communications channel with some somec to keep the proles happy.

Perhaps Bojo, Gove et al want to make the U.K. Oceania and the BBC is their propaganda channel and the majority are happy to pay for the privilege.

The politicising of the BBC was started by the tories when they appointed Patton as DG (well all governments have tried to some extent, but that was the biggest real success up to then) but the big move came under labour with the rigged Hutton enquiry. Unfortunately Greg Dyke resigned with a whimper instead of fighting for the organisations independence, and then it's fate was sealed as Murdoch instructed Blair to defund their journalism efforts.

Now the BBC largely exists to facilitate the transfer of public money to private organisations so shareholders can reap the benefits of an inflated license fee while the public suffer deflated quality of programming. Just another example of the tories main unstated policy driver.

Yes!

DIY SOS and the repair shop are worth the cost on their own

If it was just BBC TV, then maybe not. However BBC is so much more and I happily pay the "TV" license for all that it offers, even if some of that is currently seen as free.
Stop funding the BBC and you'd lose the 5 excellent radio stations I regularly listen to, the website and the local output.

Yes, and not just because I indirectly work for them sometimes.

Be honest, most of netflix output is pretty dire. Especially the documentaries. Why have an interesting hour long BBC documentary when you can have the typical netlix true crime 6 hours of interview padded out with b-roll and archive on Netflix? Netflix does a good job of aggregating content from (mostly North American) broadcasters, but their own commissioning is just awfull. The feature films make BBC Christmas specials looks good!

And can you imagine a news media landscape without the BBC? Or BBC directly funded via a government Grant?

And can you imagine a news media landscape without the BBC? Or BBC directly funded via a government Grant?

News really isn't a good advert for the BBC.

Wouldn't pay and haven't watched it for a while, i simply don't watch TV.

That’s an argument I’ve not heard before, suspect it has an element of truth in it.

It was pointed out to me in uni by a journalism student, it made sense then and still stands up now. Basically the BBC sets the benchmark and the commercial channels have to come close to it or do even better. Without the benchmark it quickly becomes a race to the bottom.
The easiest example is ad breaks. While the BBC has none (just the odd promo for another of their shows in between programmes) the commercial channels have to have ads to pay the bills. While ITV, C4 and C5 could have gone down the US model of having ads everywhere (ads before show intro, after show intro but before show starts, every 10 mins throughout, before final credits, after final credits plus lots of product placement where things like scoreboards, studio sections and updates are sponsored) the rules were drawn up to allow then IIRC 3 slots an hour and a max of 12 mins. Product placement has only recently started happening bar cars on loan or prizes being 'donated' etc. This was all drawn up on the back of the viewers being used to ad-free BBC output and rules being used to encourage decent programming content rather than the constant 'before the break' catch-up nonsense you get on US and lots of Sky shows where each segment only has 1-2 mins of new show and you end up with a 40 minute show (1 hour scheduled but 20 mins of ads and credits) actually being only 20-25 mins long once you cut out all the recaps and 'after the break' bullshit. As for the Sky model of C5 quality but with adverts AND a subscription charge - they'll never get any of my money.

we could easily end up with TV like the US

Braeking Bad, The Wire, Sopranos, Stranger Things, Big Little Lies, etc etc …

Like your selective quoting there, let me get the rest of it for you to add context:

We may love the shows we get over here that they make but they are the quality stuff they make, the vast majority of US output is dire and can help spread misinformation and enforce stereotypes, racial bias etc.

When you're a country the size they are compared to us you have to look at it in terms of quality/crap ratio. Theirs is massively more biased towards crap than ours is. They do not produce 10x the amount of quality programming despite being 10x our population or more.

It really is. When are they going to lead with Hancock’s corrupt contracts the same way they are leading with Salmon -Sturgeon, to mention just the latest example?

I have to agree.

Bojo / Hancock could gun down babies in the street and the BBC wouldn't report it.

Yes there are worse channels eg Fox news, but the BBC has lost all credibility for me and I've stopped paying the license fee as a result.

The benchmark issue is important. If you lower the bar the bar is lowered and unlikely to be raised again.

Would no longer put BBC news in the benchmark category though, that bar got lowered long ago. Prefer ITV for mainstream news and C4 for more in depth content. Alhough I rarely watch it SKY news seems to put the boot in to the government a bit harder than the BBC these days. Shows you how far the beeb has fallen. Just thinking about the political roster at the BBC the last few years:

Andrew 'Murdoch' Neil
Jeremy 'I nearly stood as a Tory candidate' Paxman.
David 'Bullingdon boy' dimblewit.
Nick 'Cameron's fluffer' Robinson.
Laura 'My sources at Downing St" kunesberg.
Fiona 'Fox news' Bruce.

I'd pay for A package of BBC4, Radio 1xtra, BBC2 and radio3 though.

I’d pay. Happily.

Why on earth would you pay? It's utter crap. Crap programming, biased politic programming. totally overtaken by the PC Woke brewage. Just let it go commercial and lets see if it survives in true Darwin style. (spoiler alert: it wont).

inkster and wobbliscott's posts remind everything is alright with the world.

Within the space of 2 posts in the last 3 the Beeb has been derided as being both in the tory's pocket AND lefite Woke nonsense.

And relax...