The license fee

[backsidebaggie]

How can society decide? Take a look at any polls regarding tv licences. Most are not in favour, but society is stuck with it. Council tax is a necessity, tv license is not.

Poll says people would rather have something for free than to pay for it - hold the front page!

Quite. How does society decide anything - at the ballot box.  When an elected govt. decides we should get rid of the license fee it will go. And Backside, it may happen sooner rather than later but I shall be sad. I would prefer other restructuring and additional methods of raising BBC revenue along with the license fee but an ITV model is in the end highly reductive. We would lose more than we would gain - in my opinion.

It will be gone in the next few years yes. And many many people will be 150 better off and lose absolutely nothing. Especially as most young folk don’t even use the bbc.

---

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.

A party political broadcast for the Nihilist Party there.

Just what most people think dh. Each to their own, but most are not in favour of a licence fee.

Why do you want to have more TV and Radio that is controlled by offshore billionaires with dubious reasons for wanting to sway public opinion? They aren't interested in non-partisan news and current affairs, they don't want to entertain for any other reason than to make money and influence public opinion. There is clearly room for a broadcaster like the BBC who aren't just chasing ratings for advertisers or trying to overtly subvert the news like Fox News does.

Absolutely. Funded by advertising or subscription (if you’re worried about the influence of advertisers).

[Protheroe]

The BBC have one of the most established back catalogues of entertainment in the world, maybe if they weren't hamstrung by the government and the archaic charter system they would be able to properly commercialise it. As it is, a fair proportion of their income is from BBC Studios which is the commercial arm and isn't publicly funded, and that's with it being kneecapped.

What's BritBox then?

[Tom Joad]

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.

These 2 posts are how I feel about the BBC. I wouldn't be without it but I seem to spend a disproportionate amount of my time raging at the tv and radio and you know what? They don't help themselves.
The Beeb doesn't want advertising but when it bombards us with adverts for it's own stuff, that's a contradiction. The constant pushing what they see as politically correct agendas is annoying too.  (When their Trans Rights promotion got a thumping from the listeners of Womans Hour-Quite right too it seemed to me).  Also the news coverage has dropped in quality, I don't find it either Left or Right, just lightweight in research and detail. Then there is the salaries issue. I know quality costs money, but Gary Lineker??? And don't start me on the army they send to Glastonbury, I love the coverage too but are they all necessary?
I think if the Beeb could just put it's own house in order then those of us that listen to little else would have a stronger argument. Radio 4, 6 Music, Channels 1,2 and 4. I wouldn't be without them.
 As Joni Mitchell said, You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.

[Derek Hardballs]

Poll says people would rather have something for free than to pay for it - hold the front page!

Quite. How does society decide anything - at the ballot box.  When an elected govt. decides we should get rid of the license fee it will go. And Backside, it may happen sooner rather than later but I shall be sad. I would prefer other restructuring and additional methods of raising BBC revenue along with the license fee but an ITV model is in the end highly reductive. We would lose more than we would gain - in my opinion.

It will be gone in the next few years yes. And many many people will be 150 better off and lose absolutely nothing. Especially as most young folk don’t even use the bbc.

---

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.

A party political broadcast for the Nihilist Party there.

Just what most people think dh. Each to their own, but most are not in favour of a licence fee.

Why do you want to have more TV and Radio that is controlled by offshore billionaires with dubious reasons for wanting to sway public opinion? They aren't interested in non-partisan news and current affairs, they don't want to entertain for any other reason than to make money and influence public opinion. There is clearly room for a broadcaster like the BBC who aren't just chasing ratings for advertisers or trying to overtly subvert the news like Fox News does.

Absolutely. Funded by advertising or subscription (if you’re worried about the influence of advertisers).

You want more Murdoch type broadcasters?

[Psalm23]

Quite. How does society decide anything - at the ballot box.  When an elected govt. decides we should get rid of the license fee it will go. And Backside, it may happen sooner rather than later but I shall be sad. I would prefer other restructuring and additional methods of raising BBC revenue along with the license fee but an ITV model is in the end highly reductive. We would lose more than we would gain - in my opinion.

It will be gone in the next few years yes. And many many people will be 150 better off and lose absolutely nothing. Especially as most young folk don’t even use the bbc.

---

A party political broadcast for the Nihilist Party there.

Just what most people think dh. Each to their own, but most are not in favour of a licence fee.

Why do you want to have more TV and Radio that is controlled by offshore billionaires with dubious reasons for wanting to sway public opinion? They aren't interested in non-partisan news and current affairs, they don't want to entertain for any other reason than to make money and influence public opinion. There is clearly room for a broadcaster like the BBC who aren't just chasing ratings for advertisers or trying to overtly subvert the news like Fox News does.

Absolutely. Funded by advertising or subscription (if you’re worried about the influence of advertisers).

You want more Murdoch type broadcasters?

Of course, why would anyone not want a few more channels with inane, inteligence insulting adverts every 10 fucking minutes.  FFS

[cornishbaggie]

Is this where I post #defund the BBC whilst getting a stiffy at the thought of Fox ahem sorry GB News channel? A channel I’m sure that will be impartial and tell the truth.

If it's so good, why don't you and your ilk pay for it through subscription and leave those that want a choice of what we pay for, do so.

---

Attenborough,
World leading coverage of live 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 this is the perfect post, someone that really rates the BBC to the point of championing it and is happy to pay for it and I am sure there are many like him, so I'm sure you would all be happy to subscribe to it and leave those that aren't to spend their money elsewhere.

Why do I get the feeling you'll be watching GB News fervently? 

Why do you assume I watch any news ?

[backsidebaggie]

Quite. How does society decide anything - at the ballot box.  When an elected govt. decides we should get rid of the license fee it will go. And Backside, it may happen sooner rather than later but I shall be sad. I would prefer other restructuring and additional methods of raising BBC revenue along with the license fee but an ITV model is in the end highly reductive. We would lose more than we would gain - in my opinion.

It will be gone in the next few years yes. And many many people will be 150 better off and lose absolutely nothing. Especially as most young folk don’t even use the bbc.

---

A party political broadcast for the Nihilist Party there.

Just what most people think dh. Each to their own, but most are not in favour of a licence fee.

Why do you want to have more TV and Radio that is controlled by offshore billionaires with dubious reasons for wanting to sway public opinion? They aren't interested in non-partisan news and current affairs, they don't want to entertain for any other reason than to make money and influence public opinion. There is clearly room for a broadcaster like the BBC who aren't just chasing ratings for advertisers or trying to overtly subvert the news like Fox News does.

Absolutely. Funded by advertising or subscription (if you’re worried about the influence of advertisers).

You want more Murdoch type broadcasters?

Nope. I couldn’t care less how many murdoch type broadcasters there are, I don’t watch them. You’re desperate to shoehorn me dh, as you tend to do to folk on here (and I agree with many points you make on the politics board). Just because I don’t believe in the licence fee, does not mean I’m attracted to murdoch type news. I use the Reuters app for my general news.

This is why you end up in so many arguments on here dh, as soon as anyone disagrees with you, you try to make out they’re hard right wing nutters/murdoch fans etc. You’ve done it to Cornish on this thread with your dig about gb news.

To clarify, I don’t think there should be a licence fee and I think the bbc is crap and has got more dumbed down over the last couple of decades. That’s it. You can make inferences from that but you’ll probably be wrong.

[Derek Hardballs]

It will be gone in the next few years yes. And many many people will be 150 better off and lose absolutely nothing. Especially as most young folk don’t even use the bbc.

---

Just what most people think dh. Each to their own, but most are not in favour of a licence fee.

Why do you want to have more TV and Radio that is controlled by offshore billionaires with dubious reasons for wanting to sway public opinion? They aren't interested in non-partisan news and current affairs, they don't want to entertain for any other reason than to make money and influence public opinion. There is clearly room for a broadcaster like the BBC who aren't just chasing ratings for advertisers or trying to overtly subvert the news like Fox News does.

Absolutely. Funded by advertising or subscription (if you’re worried about the influence of advertisers).

You want more Murdoch type broadcasters?

Nope. I couldn’t care less how many murdoch type broadcasters there are, I don’t watch them. You’re desperate to shoehorn me dh, as you tend to do to folk on here (and I agree with many points you make on the politics board). Just because I don’t believe in the licence fee, does not mean I’m attracted to murdoch type news. I use the Reuters app for my general news.

This is why you end up in so many arguments on here dh, as soon as anyone disagrees with you, you try to make out they’re hard right wing nutters/murdoch fans etc. You’ve done it to Cornish on this thread with your dig about gb news.

To clarify, I don’t think there should be a licence fee and I think the bbc is crap and has got more dumbed down over the last couple of decades. That’s it. You can make inferences from that but you’ll probably be wrong.

I don't really know why you're complaining about a spending a few pence every day on a broadcaster that serves the nation. You don't like the output which stretches from Six Music and BBC4 through to inane shite on Saturday nights Prime time TV that is quite niche taste if you cannot find anything to watch  / listen to on the BBC. I think subscription and commercial TV have their place but I don't really agree with the idea that we should scrap our national broadcaster because you don't have a use for it personally.

[The liquidator]

I can honestly say the last thing I watched not football related on the BBC was line of duty on BBC 1.

---

Why do you want to have more TV and Radio that is controlled by offshore billionaires with dubious reasons for wanting to sway public opinion? They aren't interested in non-partisan news and current affairs, they don't want to entertain for any other reason than to make money and influence public opinion. There is clearly room for a broadcaster like the BBC who aren't just chasing ratings for advertisers or trying to overtly subvert the news like Fox News does.

Absolutely. Funded by advertising or subscription (if you’re worried about the influence of advertisers).

You want more Murdoch type broadcasters?

Nope. I couldn’t care less how many murdoch type broadcasters there are, I don’t watch them. You’re desperate to shoehorn me dh, as you tend to do to folk on here (and I agree with many points you make on the politics board). Just because I don’t believe in the licence fee, does not mean I’m attracted to murdoch type news. I use the Reuters app for my general news.

This is why you end up in so many arguments on here dh, as soon as anyone disagrees with you, you try to make out they’re hard right wing nutters/murdoch fans etc. You’ve done it to Cornish on this thread with your dig about gb news.

To clarify, I don’t think there should be a licence fee and I think the bbc is crap and has got more dumbed down over the last couple of decades. That’s it. You can make inferences from that but you’ll probably be wrong.

I don't really know why you're complaining about a spending a few pence every day on a broadcaster that serves the nation. You don't like the output which stretches from Six Music and BBC4 through to inane shite on Saturday nights Prime time TV that is quite niche taste if you cannot find anything to watch  / listen to on the BBC. I think subscription and commercial TV have their place but I don't really agree with the idea that we should scrap our national broadcaster because you don't have a use for it personally.

Why should you pay for it if you don't watch the channel?

[backsidebaggie]

Why do you want to have more TV and Radio that is controlled by offshore billionaires with dubious reasons for wanting to sway public opinion? They aren't interested in non-partisan news and current affairs, they don't want to entertain for any other reason than to make money and influence public opinion. There is clearly room for a broadcaster like the BBC who aren't just chasing ratings for advertisers or trying to overtly subvert the news like Fox News does.

Absolutely. Funded by advertising or subscription (if you’re worried about the influence of advertisers).

You want more Murdoch type broadcasters?

Nope. I couldn’t care less how many murdoch type broadcasters there are, I don’t watch them. You’re desperate to shoehorn me dh, as you tend to do to folk on here (and I agree with many points you make on the politics board). Just because I don’t believe in the licence fee, does not mean I’m attracted to murdoch type news. I use the Reuters app for my general news.

This is why you end up in so many arguments on here dh, as soon as anyone disagrees with you, you try to make out they’re hard right wing nutters/murdoch fans etc. You’ve done it to Cornish on this thread with your dig about gb news.

To clarify, I don’t think there should be a licence fee and I think the bbc is crap and has got more dumbed down over the last couple of decades. That’s it. You can make inferences from that but you’ll probably be wrong.

I don't really know why you're complaining about a spending a few pence every day on a broadcaster that serves the nation. You don't like the output which stretches from Six Music and BBC4 through to inane shite on Saturday nights Prime time TV that is quite niche taste if you cannot find anything to watch  / listen to on the BBC. I think subscription and commercial TV have their place but I don't really agree with the idea that we should scrap our national broadcaster because you don't have a use for it personally.

I’m not complaining. It’s a thread discussing the issue and I gave my view. Simple as that.

I think many people don’t use the services, who are far worse off than me and struggle to justify 14 quid a month, and it’s unfair. It’s not about just me not using it. I dont believe in the licence, and polls suggest I’m in the majority.

I dont think the bbc should be done away with, I think it should be funded by adverts or subscriptions. Simple as that.