I have just read this story and in the past I have always said that the BBC licence fee should stay as I do really hate the FATCAT that is Mr R. Murdoch but sadly being sports fans the only way to get lots of the Football as well as Cricket is via Sky and now BT although it is good to see the FA Cup back on the BBC.
Yet again there will probably be those clever people who will respond saying that we are not forced to pay for Sky but how else are we to see football apart from putting up with just highlights?, so things can not go on as they are and something needs to change.
Now if we think about Thames and although Thames do not exist as Thames anymore they do exist as Talkback Thames and although loosing ratings the X Factor has been very popular and Talkback Thames have produced programmes for the BBC as well as ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, so how about the following:
1: The BBC's Licence Fee - Was Axed?.
Then how about the BBC just becoming a producer of programmes, would Sky or someone else buy Eastenders etc. That way we could still see programmes made by the BBC and the BBC would be getting money from Sky etc.
That way they could focus on their radio side and lets not start they did start out in just radio broadcasting, so we would have the best of both worlds and not only that we would not have to pay for a licence fee as well as Sky etc. Having said that we would obviously need to pay an amount for radio but a smaller amount than now.
Please don't get me wrong as it would be a shame to lose the BBC but it is quite clear that we will always have times when the Tories get into power and the FATCATS that they are will always support the likes of Murdoch, this means Sky will be able to raise prices when they like as in the case of this year while the BBC which is a Public organisation are forced to suffer cuts.
Alright so this year/next there is the FA Cup and both the BBC and ITV show the World Cup and there is Wimbledon, but apart from as I have already said there is only highlights on Match of the Day and no proper sports show like Grandstand and although there is Later Live with Jools Holland there is no Top of the Pops so no pop show. Sadly the BBC has changed over the last 10/20 years and what with the latest cuts they have been forced with from the freeze on the licence fee they are still having to pay fees to Sky so it will just get worse for them.
Something needs to change and I feel that if the BBC ended it actual television operations but instead was a producer of programmes and sold them to Sky etc. We would still have radio with a reduced fee and the best of both worlds but who would take local news produced by the BBC?.
If you look at how ITV has fallen having to compete on a commercial level then the idea that the BBC become a subscription channel is worrying for the quality of British television as a whole. At the same time I do think the BBC act far too commercially at times considering they're a subsidised service - such as purchasing The Voice and moving Strictly later into the evening unnecessarily.
The BBC is a zombie Tassium. I would rather give my 145 squid to the fanatics who are trying to convince everybody everybody still wants the BBC... they need the money more.
The BBC is a zombie Tassium. I would rather give my 145 squid to the fanatics who are trying to convince everybody everybody still wants the BBC... they need the money more.
The BBC is a zombie Tassium. I would rather give my 145 squid to the fanatics who are trying to convince everybody everybody still wants the BBC... they need the money more.
The only fanatics are the anti BBC types like yourself. If the BBC is so unpopular why do so many watch and listen to the BBC everyday?
Perspective needs to be taken in polls like this. Essentially its asking a specified number of people whether they want to pay less money. I would imagine in most cases(apart from the NHS maybe) the inevitability is that people will always be magnetised to the idea of paying less than they have to. To be honest I cant understand people who choose not to watch at least some BBC output-but then again I was brought up on it. The non terrestrial output seems largely a sea of dross to me.
Dumb idea unless you're Mr R Murdoch or a BSkyB shareholder, in which case you'll be given a licence to print money.
A voluntary funded BBC would have to compete for subscription fees, so I'd expect the axing of unprofitable PSB content and for the BBC to become more commercial to maximise subs. This will hit ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 who will also be under pressure to drop PSB content and will lobby Ofcom to axe their requirements. Ofcom being the toothless wonders they are, will naturally concede to their demands.
The alternative is for the BBC to be placed behind a paywall with the same consequences as above, with ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 more likely to join if their bottom line suffers.
That'll also kill off Freeview and Freesat whilst pay TV providers significantly cash in and increase their subscription fees in the face of far less competition. People previously paying £12 a month will now find themselves paying £30 or more a month for potentially far less programming. With no concessions for over 75's as there is now. Not sure how this benefits consumers..?
All the while, I'd expect the European Broadcasting Union to look at this, shocked and open jawed as PSB is wiped off the TV screens of UK households. No doubt a Greek ERT style campaign will be launched to restore a (free-to-air) PSB.
When the fee is scrapped, what would be a fair subscription rate for the BBC based on the quality of their output?
If the BBC ever were to be commercialised (note, that does NOT mean the Government would stop collecting the Licence fee either) it is highly unlikely that a voluntary subscription would be chosen as the new funding method, only idiots think it would. Subscription like that costs far too much to administrate.
The far more likely scenario is it would become into an ITV like broadcaster, spewing out cheap tat TV aimed at simpletons whilsts making lage profits.
Current programming certainly wouldn't remain as PSB programming is highly expensive to produce.
If the Licence Fee is scrapped and subscription is brought in on the basis that the individual has "choice" could someone explain what "choice" a subscriber would have to NOT have their subscription funding:
1) Crap Local TV stations that the current Government licensed and have been an abject failure
2) Broadband improvements for rural areas
3) Funding the World Service, output of which cannot be listened to or enjoyed by UK citizens given that much of it is in non-English language.
All three of the above are funded by the Licence Fee. So if the Licence Fee goes who funds them? Why should subscribers choosing fund to the BBC subsidise London Live? Would the Government levy a charge on top of a Sky or Virgin Media subscription to fund the above too? Or do they add it to general taxation or council tax?
When the fee is scrapped, what would be a fair subscription rate for the BBC based on the quality of their output?
Far less than the £145 cost of Licence Fee (which the amount is set by the Government) as they would no longer have to pay all of the things that they currently are out of the licence fee money they receive, and populist cheap tat TV is cheap to make.
The BBC is a zombie Tassium. I would rather give my 145 squid to the fanatics who are trying to convince everybody everybody still wants the BBC... they need the money more.
It seems you are one of the people that foolishly believe privatising public services actually saves people money, rather than costing everyone far more.
It seems you are one of the people that foolishly believe privatising public services actually saves people money, rather than costing everyone far more.
Yes I wonder how much less we'd be spending on Utility bills and trains if they had been kept nationalised.
The licence fee isn't a tax anyway. People only have to pay it if they use the services it provide.
The BBC does need keeping in check but not just because we pay for it via the Licence fee.
You can't put the BBC - providing public service content that, by definition, is meant to be available to the whole population - behind a paywall.
It's daft to suggest this but even dafter if free to air commercial services remain whilst the BBC is encrypted. Imagine last weekend being able to watch the X Factor and Jonathan Ross but not being able to see the annual Festival of Remembrance at the Albert Hall. There would be a public outcry and rightly so, and before anyone suggests it, I don't think ITV, which is o longer the 'licence to print money' it once was, would be easily persuaded to drop its most profitable programming to carry public service content on a Saturday night.
<< Also just about every developed Country in the world has a publicly funded broadcaster. >>
That's right. So should we. Instead we have the most feather bedded organisation in the whole world with the world's largest news organisation serving the British establishment supporting Lords and Ladies and Royalty pumping out constant right wing propaganda, all of which every person with a TV set is forced by law to pay for even sending some people to prison for not having enough money to pay the fines they get for not being able to afford the cost.
We should have a publicly funded broadcaster with a TV channel and a radio channel and with no advertising but sponsored programmes. Why the Dickens should I have to pay by law for pop music channels that I have never in my life heard?
Yes I wonder how much less we'd be spending on Utility bills and trains if they had been kept nationalised.
The licence fee isn't a tax anyway. People only have to pay it if they use the services it provide.
Not true, try watching ITV or any other commercial channels without a TV licence and you will be breaking the law.
So the service the TV licence provide is the BBC stuff, radio, TV and websites.
The BBC does need keeping in check but not just because we pay for it via the Licence fee.
The BBC needs a kick up the backside and have done for years, i refuse to pay for it now, but doing so I also can not watch live content from commercial channels, not that I really want to anyway.
<< Also just about every developed Country in the world has a publicly funded broadcaster. >>
That's right. So should we. Instead we have the most feather bedded organisation in the whole world with the world's largest news organisation serving the British establishment supporting Lords and Ladies and Royalty pumping out constant right wing propaganda, all of which every person with a TV set is forced by law to pay for even sending some people to prison for not having enough money to pay the fines they get for not being able to afford the cost.
We should have a publicly funded broadcaster with a TV channel and a radio channel and with no advertising but sponsored programmes. Why the Dickens should I have to pay by law for pop music channels that I have never in my life heard?
Oh so it is right wing bias now? I am trying to keep up left,right, liberal... What next? As for your nonsense about sponsored programmes that will pay diddly squat and the programming will have to be attractive to advertisers so will be absolutely no different to what they would be if they took advertising apart from being even worse because they would be so cash starved. As for being forced to pay for pop channels you have never heard. I haven't a clue what you are talking about and what channels you are talking about? But I guess you are one of those that thinks that anything that all music made after 1950 is pop music.
Well i dont see why the BBC should be ring fenced and be protected, while other services are lossing their ring fencing. I believe what what one of the MPs says is true if the bbc is so good at what it does and is real true value for money then people will pay for the service, that is the only true way to see if the public really back the bbc. If people like and want the goods on offer they will pay for it, if the bbc does not deliver what the pubic want then the public will not pay and want what is on offer, all other media are run as a buisness and have to give the public what they want to stay in buisness, just the same as any buisness. The bbc and its supporters should have nothing to worry about if its a strong busness and supplying what the paying public want.
I really hope, like the majority of the country, the fee is scrapped. If people want to watch the BBC, they can pay for the privilege. Simple.
I would personally pay £40 for the right for my TV not to be able to receive the BBC and not pay the Licence fee.
The BBC as an organisation is bias and corrupt. Having said this, I fully understand the pain to those currently employed by the BBC at reading this. However, for you, I say hold tight. Labour will fight with teeth and claws to protect the BBC.
Ohh belive me,it wont be just the labour party fighting to keep the BBC,i think you will find many stars of tv and many many thousands of the british public also fighting against a tory party determind to destroy another one of the great british institutions still regarded as one of the best in the world!!!!!!
You can't put the BBC - providing public service content that, by definition, is meant to be available to the whole population - behind a paywall.
It's daft to suggest this but even dafter if free to air commercial services remain whilst the BBC is encrypted. Imagine last weekend being able to watch the X Factor and Jonathan Ross but not being able to see the annual Festival of Remembrance at the Albert Hall. There would be a public outcry and rightly so, and before anyone suggests it, I don't think ITV, which is o longer the 'licence to print money' it once was, would be easily persuaded to drop its most profitable programming to carry public service content on a Saturday night.
Good point. The very basis of the BBC is its availability to everyone and clearly that is not possible under any form of subscription. I actually doubt any government would have the balls to go down that road. When the Savile tragedy was at its height I recall a pretty spirited cross party defence of the BBC in Parliament. I suspect there isn't a massive will for drastic action.
Comments
Yet again there will probably be those clever people who will respond saying that we are not forced to pay for Sky but how else are we to see football apart from putting up with just highlights?, so things can not go on as they are and something needs to change.
Now if we think about Thames and although Thames do not exist as Thames anymore they do exist as Talkback Thames and although loosing ratings the X Factor has been very popular and Talkback Thames have produced programmes for the BBC as well as ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, so how about the following:
1: The BBC's Licence Fee - Was Axed?.
Then how about the BBC just becoming a producer of programmes, would Sky or someone else buy Eastenders etc. That way we could still see programmes made by the BBC and the BBC would be getting money from Sky etc.
That way they could focus on their radio side and lets not start they did start out in just radio broadcasting, so we would have the best of both worlds and not only that we would not have to pay for a licence fee as well as Sky etc. Having said that we would obviously need to pay an amount for radio but a smaller amount than now.
Please don't get me wrong as it would be a shame to lose the BBC but it is quite clear that we will always have times when the Tories get into power and the FATCATS that they are will always support the likes of Murdoch, this means Sky will be able to raise prices when they like as in the case of this year while the BBC which is a Public organisation are forced to suffer cuts.
Alright so this year/next there is the FA Cup and both the BBC and ITV show the World Cup and there is Wimbledon, but apart from as I have already said there is only highlights on Match of the Day and no proper sports show like Grandstand and although there is Later Live with Jools Holland there is no Top of the Pops so no pop show. Sadly the BBC has changed over the last 10/20 years and what with the latest cuts they have been forced with from the freeze on the licence fee they are still having to pay fees to Sky so it will just get worse for them.
Something needs to change and I feel that if the BBC ended it actual television operations but instead was a producer of programmes and sold them to Sky etc. We would still have radio with a reduced fee and the best of both worlds but who would take local news produced by the BBC?.
You can call a subscription service "BBC" if you want, but it'll be nothing like the BBC of old.
But the BBC died about 15 years ago anyway in my view. It's a zombie nowadays.
I'll PM you my PayPal details then
Really it should be "if the fee is scrapped and if a subscription model is chosen"
A voluntary funded BBC would have to compete for subscription fees, so I'd expect the axing of unprofitable PSB content and for the BBC to become more commercial to maximise subs. This will hit ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 who will also be under pressure to drop PSB content and will lobby Ofcom to axe their requirements. Ofcom being the toothless wonders they are, will naturally concede to their demands.
The alternative is for the BBC to be placed behind a paywall with the same consequences as above, with ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 more likely to join if their bottom line suffers.
That'll also kill off Freeview and Freesat whilst pay TV providers significantly cash in and increase their subscription fees in the face of far less competition. People previously paying £12 a month will now find themselves paying £30 or more a month for potentially far less programming. With no concessions for over 75's as there is now. Not sure how this benefits consumers..?
All the while, I'd expect the European Broadcasting Union to look at this, shocked and open jawed as PSB is wiped off the TV screens of UK households. No doubt a Greek ERT style campaign will be launched to restore a (free-to-air) PSB.
If the BBC ever were to be commercialised (note, that does NOT mean the Government would stop collecting the Licence fee either) it is highly unlikely that a voluntary subscription would be chosen as the new funding method, only idiots think it would. Subscription like that costs far too much to administrate.
The far more likely scenario is it would become into an ITV like broadcaster, spewing out cheap tat TV aimed at simpletons whilsts making lage profits.
Current programming certainly wouldn't remain as PSB programming is highly expensive to produce.
1) Crap Local TV stations that the current Government licensed and have been an abject failure
2) Broadband improvements for rural areas
3) Funding the World Service, output of which cannot be listened to or enjoyed by UK citizens given that much of it is in non-English language.
All three of the above are funded by the Licence Fee. So if the Licence Fee goes who funds them? Why should subscribers choosing fund to the BBC subsidise London Live? Would the Government levy a charge on top of a Sky or Virgin Media subscription to fund the above too? Or do they add it to general taxation or council tax?
"Choice" very quickly breaks down doesnt it...
Far less than the £145 cost of Licence Fee (which the amount is set by the Government) as they would no longer have to pay all of the things that they currently are out of the licence fee money they receive, and populist cheap tat TV is cheap to make.
It seems you are one of the people that foolishly believe privatising public services actually saves people money, rather than costing everyone far more.
Yes I wonder how much less we'd be spending on Utility bills and trains if they had been kept nationalised.
The licence fee isn't a tax anyway. People only have to pay it if they use the services it provide.
The BBC does need keeping in check but not just because we pay for it via the Licence fee.
It's daft to suggest this but even dafter if free to air commercial services remain whilst the BBC is encrypted. Imagine last weekend being able to watch the X Factor and Jonathan Ross but not being able to see the annual Festival of Remembrance at the Albert Hall. There would be a public outcry and rightly so, and before anyone suggests it, I don't think ITV, which is o longer the 'licence to print money' it once was, would be easily persuaded to drop its most profitable programming to carry public service content on a Saturday night.
That's right. So should we. Instead we have the most feather bedded organisation in the whole world with the world's largest news organisation serving the British establishment supporting Lords and Ladies and Royalty pumping out constant right wing propaganda, all of which every person with a TV set is forced by law to pay for even sending some people to prison for not having enough money to pay the fines they get for not being able to afford the cost.
We should have a publicly funded broadcaster with a TV channel and a radio channel and with no advertising but sponsored programmes. Why the Dickens should I have to pay by law for pop music channels that I have never in my life heard?
Not true, try watching ITV or any other commercial channels without a TV licence and you will be breaking the law.
So the service the TV licence provide is the BBC stuff, radio, TV and websites.
The BBC needs a kick up the backside and have done for years, i refuse to pay for it now, but doing so I also can not watch live content from commercial channels, not that I really want to anyway.
Ohh belive me,it wont be just the labour party fighting to keep the BBC,i think you will find many stars of tv and many many thousands of the british public also fighting against a tory party determind to destroy another one of the great british institutions still regarded as one of the best in the world!!!!!!
Good point. The very basis of the BBC is its availability to everyone and clearly that is not possible under any form of subscription. I actually doubt any government would have the balls to go down that road. When the Savile tragedy was at its height I recall a pretty spirited cross party defence of the BBC in Parliament. I suspect there isn't a massive will for drastic action.