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

I was thinking about this earlier, I have always been of the default view that BBC is great, love Attenborough etc. But then I really thought about it. The licence fee has to be a dying model and I assume that in the future it will be seriously challenged. Would I chose to pay £10 per month or whatever to watch BBC output? Nope. Compared to Netflix, Prime etc their TV output is not good enough, I just rarely watch it. I think their radio output is very good though,.

So, let’s pretend we are just talking out BBC TV channels (not radio, website etc), how much would you pay to watch it?

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.