Options
If the BBC was subscription based, would you pay?
Leviathain
Posts: 719 Forum Member
✭✭
If the BBC was subscription based, around £10 per month, would you pay?
Or would you be more than happy to go without channels like BBC 1-4, BBC News and save yourself £120 per year.
Or would you be more than happy to go without channels like BBC 1-4, BBC News and save yourself £120 per year.
If the BBC was subscription based would you pay? 210 votes
Yes
59%
125 votes
No
40%
85 votes
0
Comments
So not including all the radio stations and BBC.co.uk ??
£10 a month would be a good price.
Do you really think that if the BBC went behind a paywall that the government would axe the fee ? They would just continue on with a license fee maybe even under the same name to allow you to receive broadcast media in any shape or form.
Nope.
BBC 4 and Radio 6 Music are worth it for me.
i think a tenner a month would be a steal in all honesty!
As it stands at the moment. No.
An entity called the "BBC" might be able to take your money. But it would be a radically different beast to what currently exists.
It would be a commercial operation. That changes the entire nature of an organisation.
Eventually it would surely take commercials. The subscription would climb and climb. £200/year. £300/year
It would also cost more than £10 a month. That figure assumes that the 25m who currently pay for a TV licence all move over to subscription, which they wouldn't.
Not very far as it's less than half the basic subscription and the amount of repeats they show far outweigh the BBC.
It really does make the BBC look an absolute bargain with 9 tv channels, 7 national radio stations, local radio, s4c(!) a website, catch up service and HD at no extra cost.
The TV would then be taking up space that could be put to better use.
Dependable.
All in all, it depends on what the BBC shows and how much it would charge.
What is the population of the UK that can access BBC on TV?
I'd get more entertainment watching this ^_^
However the proposition makes little sense. It couldn't be £10 a month for the current offer as the same costs would be spread over fewer people. And there's no mechanism for subscription radio.
You could record on your sky+ box, you would not get any chanels so I think the BBC wins every time;-)
WTF you getting this £10 a month from?
Sky charges over £20 a month just for its mediocre entertainment channels such as the sensational Sky 1 which today fills 4 hours from 16:00 to 20:00 with cartoons.
Today BBC1 kicks off the 6 Nations Rugby included in the £145.50 licence fee (40p a day) if it was with Sky I'd have to pay something like £200 a year for Sky Sports and be made to pay another £200 for entertainment channels most people don't watch.
Alternatively there is the Pay-As-Go Now TV which charges £6.99 for one day's access, compared to a TV licence of 40p a day.
Requiring every household to pay for a service really brings down the cost per household! When it's optional you just won't get the same number of customers.
In fact you could never get enough customers to be able to get even slightly close to the revenue the BBC has now. I think a subscription BBC could raise maybe £1billion/year. Perhaps a bit more initially.
But with Now Tv, just like Netflix you can opt in and out as you please.
Try doing that with the TV licence, with a subscription you would have that choice, unless they did a Sky and made it a contract.
Sadly I think there are a lot of people in this country naive enough to believe that would be the case.
Like you I think that is exactly what the government would do, they've never been known to scrap anything that extracts money out of the population willingly.
As for the poll, I would pay to watch the BBC as that is the service I watch the most, I certainly wouldn't give Sky's parent company any money.
This is a pointless poll as the BBC would have to change to be far more commercial in it's output.
So, more sport, more audience grabbers, less diverse and risky programming.
So, probably better to just leave it as it is.