WBAUnofficial
The license fee - Printable Version

+- WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk)
+-- Forum: WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: The license fee (/showthread.php?tid=15584)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


RE: The license fee - baggiebloke - 02-09-2021

(02-09-2021, 09:31 AM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:27 AM)baggiebloke Wrote: The BBC frustrates me for a number of reasons and, at times infuriates.

However. Its the envy of the world and rightly so.

Its pros far outway the cons and its value is excellent.

The envy of the world? Really? I doubt many in the world give a toss about it.

And again, for a lot of people there are no pros. For those that like it, subscribe! It’s value is not excellent if you don’t use it. It’s a tax for nothing.

Yes, absolutely. From Forbes (for example) 


[font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif]The [/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif]BBC[/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif] is the global standard bearer for excellence in broadcast radio and TV journalism. If only U.S. cable news outlets could follow [/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif]BBC[/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif]‘s recipe. And while PBS produces some great entertainment, documentary and news programs, its news programs have often seemed to lack the creative energy of the [/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif]BBC[/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif]. While NPR produces some fantastic journalism, a bulk of its news coverage seem to come from re-reporting news from the[/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif] New York Times[/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif] and the[/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif] Associated Press[/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif]. And the [/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif]American public perceives NPR[/font][font=tabular-numbers, Georgia, "Droid Serif", "Times New Roman", Times, serif] to be more left-leaning than the BBC.[/font]


RE: The license fee - Duffers - 02-09-2021

(02-09-2021, 09:40 AM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:38 AM)Duffers Wrote: Attenborough,
World leading coverage of love sporting events (Olympics, World Cups/Euros, Wimbledon, etc)
Glastonbury coverage,
BBC Radio (especially 6 Music)
BBC Drama,
Match of the Day,
CeeBeebees (a fucking lifesaver sometimes)
The online content,

For these reasons and more I’m happy to pay.

And that’s why it should be subscription. My list is literally nil, apart from maybe radio wm in the car about 2 hours a year.

I don’t disagree. I’d pay, it’s up to others if they don’t.

No moaning though if you couldn’t watch England in the World Cup or the 100m Olympics final though.


RE: The license fee - backsidebaggie - 02-09-2021

(02-09-2021, 09:39 AM)Protheroe Wrote: The BBC's funding is anachronistic in an era of mass paid for content and the License Fee can't last beyond the next renewal. Ask your kids how much BBC content they watch and on which devices and you'll realise it's a burning bridge. It's become abundantly clear durnig lockdown how little BBC content we watch - kids are always on Netflix / Prime, at the weekends me and Mrs P binge watch the same. I've gave up BBC TV news and current affairs years ago as I'm sick and tired of half a story from a sanitised editorial line. Essentially, I'd pay you for Radio 4 - in fact I'd pay more if they got rid of the appalling 6:30 "comedy" slot - but that's it - what else is there?

+1

Never have I known a product where those that like it tell those that don’t how good it is for them. If people like it, great. I think it’s awful, and I don’t like paying for something I don’t use.

(02-09-2021, 09:43 AM)Duffers Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:40 AM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:38 AM)Duffers Wrote: Attenborough,
World leading coverage of love sporting events (Olympics, World Cups/Euros, Wimbledon, etc)
Glastonbury coverage,
BBC Radio (especially 6 Music)
BBC Drama,
Match of the Day,
CeeBeebees (a fucking lifesaver sometimes)
The online content,

For these reasons and more I’m happy to pay.

And that’s why it should be subscription. My list is literally nil, apart from maybe radio wm in the car about 2 hours a year.

I don’t disagree. I’d pay, it’s up to others if they don’t.

No moaning though if you couldn’t watch England in the World Cup or the 100m Olympics final though.

Absolutely. I don’t watch international football, and Eurosport tends to show olympics I believe (not a big fan of athletics anyway). But that’s the thing, if I was suddenly desperate to watch the olympics, I could subscribe for a month. Like everything else these days.


RE: The license fee - Protheroe - 02-09-2021

(02-09-2021, 09:42 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: Pensioners would beg to differ

From the Times:

Up to 750,000 older people have refused to pay for a television licence after losing their right to a free one, figures suggest.
That equates to a £117 million deficit for the BBC, which scrapped free licences for over-75s last August.
A refusal to pay the £157.50 annual fee can result in a £1,000 fine and a prison sentence of three to six months.
Dennis Reed, director of the pensioner campaign group Silver Voices, said: “There are a hard core who are resisting. The stalling is significant. The over-75s have suddenly been flooded with further reminder letters.
“Some had three or four letters in the last couple of weeks reminding them their licences would be cancelled. They are desperate to get people to pay.

If the TV Licensing Authority doesn't come after these 750,000 individuals - why should they demand payment from the rest of us?


RE: The license fee - Brentbaggie - 02-09-2021

(02-09-2021, 09:31 AM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:27 AM)baggiebloke Wrote: The BBC frustrates me for a number of reasons and, at times infuriates.

However. Its the envy of the world and rightly so.

Its pros far outway the cons and its value is excellent.

The envy of the world? Really? I doubt many in the world give a toss about it.

And again, for a lot of people there are no pros. For those that like it, subscribe! It’s value is not excellent if you don’t use it. It’s a tax for nothing.

The idea that a thing is only of value if you as an individual use it is specious nonsense.  A philistine is a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.


RE: The license fee - Derek Hardballs - 02-09-2021

(02-09-2021, 09:21 AM)Sliced Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:16 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 08:58 AM)Sliced Wrote: It should be a subscription. Let the people who enjoy it continue to pay for it and have access when they want, those who don't can save a couple of hundred pounds and get their news/entertainment etc elsewhere.

If you don’t have a national broadcaster big events like the Olympics and World Cup become less important to the country and in turn society becomes even more fragmented than it is already. Many aren’t going to subscribe to Sky or BT just so they can watch the Olympics for example so then those shared moments are lost to millions of families. 

It works out at what a few pence a day and for that you get several TV and radio stations. Compare that to the rip off prices of BT, Sky etc. If you’re not well off you’re reducing choice and entertainment not increasing it by making it subscription. Do we really want to be making the digital decide even wider than it is now?

I really don't think that our country will go into disarray because we can't all watch the Olympics on the BBC. The vast majority will still subscribe and pay, those who don't want to won't. Sorry, I don't buy this "the country will become more fragmented" argument at all. Look at us already.

You think people will subscribe to say £25-40 to watch the Olympics? Not a chance you will just get the diehard sports fans. Look at the viewing figures for sporting events on Sky compared to terrestrial TV.  

Of course not having a national broadcaster fragments society. Look at the muppets who use the #defundthebbc. What they really want is an echochamber of opinion, tv shows that confirm their world view and never challenge it. That isn’t healthy and neither is a lack of events that can be seen collectively at relatively affordable price. Subscription penalises the choices of the less well off which again isn’t healthy.


RE: The license fee - ChamonixBaggie - 02-09-2021

I think a national broadcaster who's raison d'etre isn't profit and who's editorial line isn't decided by shareholders is very important. By and large, I think the BBC provides incredible value for money, although I wish they didn't act like a client media for the Conservative party so often Wink

I actually think the subscription model is due for some fairly radical change in the near future anyway. When Netflix first came out it was great because everything was under one roof. Now every channel/media house has it's own subscription service and the market has splintered. People aren't going to pay £5-10 p/m for 5 or 6 different services. Piracy/torrenting was on the wane during the 2010s but is massively on the rise again over the past 24 months. I think it's good and important that the BBC stays out of that.

Completely agree that the idea that something is of value only if you personally use it is a terrible way to view the world. I suppose these people also think public libraries are socialist nonsense...


RE: The license fee - backsidebaggie - 02-09-2021

(02-09-2021, 09:51 AM)Brentbaggie Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:31 AM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:27 AM)baggiebloke Wrote: The BBC frustrates me for a number of reasons and, at times infuriates.

However. Its the envy of the world and rightly so.

Its pros far outway the cons and its value is excellent.

The envy of the world? Really? I doubt many in the world give a toss about it.

And again, for a lot of people there are no pros. For those that like it, subscribe! It’s value is not excellent if you don’t use it. It’s a tax for nothing.

The idea that a thing is only of value if you as an individual use it is specious nonsense.  A philistine is a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

In the case of media, I disagree. It’s a tax for nothing. Stick adverts on it or subscription.


RE: The license fee - Ossian - 02-09-2021

(02-09-2021, 09:27 AM)baggiebloke Wrote: The BBC frustrates me for a number of reasons and, at times infuriates.

However. Its the envy of the world and rightly so.

Its pros far outway the cons and its value is excellent.

This pretty much corresponds with my own view, right down to the final point about value.

We can change the funding model to subscription by choice, then wait to see how that impacts the BBC's resources and - as a consequence - the scope and quality of the output. Inevitably what we'll end up with is something different and there's already a variety of examples of 'something different' available for comparison. I've watched a fair few of them and right now, warts and all, I'd choose to stick rather than twist.


RE: The license fee - backsidebaggie - 02-09-2021

(02-09-2021, 09:53 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:21 AM)Sliced Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 09:16 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-09-2021, 08:58 AM)Sliced Wrote: It should be a subscription. Let the people who enjoy it continue to pay for it and have access when they want, those who don't can save a couple of hundred pounds and get their news/entertainment etc elsewhere.

If you don’t have a national broadcaster big events like the Olympics and World Cup become less important to the country and in turn society becomes even more fragmented than it is already. Many aren’t going to subscribe to Sky or BT just so they can watch the Olympics for example so then those shared moments are lost to millions of families. 

It works out at what a few pence a day and for that you get several TV and radio stations. Compare that to the rip off prices of BT, Sky etc. If you’re not well off you’re reducing choice and entertainment not increasing it by making it subscription. Do we really want to be making the digital decide even wider than it is now?

I really don't think that our country will go into disarray because we can't all watch the Olympics on the BBC. The vast majority will still subscribe and pay, those who don't want to won't. Sorry, I don't buy this "the country will become more fragmented" argument at all. Look at us already.

You think people will subscribe to say £25-40 to watch the Olympics? Not a chance you will just get the diehard sports fans. Look at the viewing figures for sporting events on Sky compared to terrestrial TV.  

Of course not having a national broadcaster fragments society. Look at the muppets who use the #defundthebbc. What they really want is an echochamber of opinion, tv shows that confirm their world view and never challenge it. That isn’t healthy and neither is a lack of events that can be seen collectively at relatively affordable price. Subscription penalises the choices of the less well off which again isn’t healthy.

Then stick adverts on it to pay for it. The less well off are struggling to afford the 14 quid a month anyway (nearly double the basic Netflix price).

The idea that no bbc will fragment society more is hilarious tbh. Society is fucked. The bbc don’t make a jots difference. Hardly anyone under 30 uses it, and tons of pensioners are refusing to pay for it.