Quantcast

Article & Poll: Should we keep the BBC Licence Fee?

What do you think about the licence fee

  • The Licence Fee the most appropriate way for the BBC to be funded

    Votes: 105 19.5%
  • The BBC has to change its funding approach to remain relevant

    Votes: 127 23.6%
  • The BBC should become commercial and the licence fee scrapped

    Votes: 295 54.7%
  • Other, please answer in the thread below...

    Votes: 12 2.2%

  • Total voters
    539

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Embarrassing.


The BBC has found itself at the centre of another diversity row after a picture of Labour MP Marsha de Cordova was wrongly labelled as her colleague Dawn Butler.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
BBC News announce the start of the consultation.


But why do they lead it with photos of Tess Daly, Claudia Winkleman, Claro Amfo and Phobe Waller-Bridge?

Are they on the consultation board - doesn't appear so.

Just seems to be a throw away photo, but they could have used photos of Baroness Nicky Morgan, surely that would have been more relevant to the story.

Or is this the BBC grasping at anything - "look we employ women, there's even a woman of colour, and one that has claimed to be gender non-conforming".

Cheers,

Nigel
 

Kailash

Well-known Member
BBC News announce the start of the consultation.


But why do they lead it with photos of Tess Daly, Claudia Winkleman, Claro Amfo and Phobe Waller-Bridge?

Are they on the consultation board - doesn't appear so.

Just seems to be a throw away photo, but they could have used photos of Baroness Nicky Morgan, surely that would have been more relevant to the story.

Or is this the BBC grasping at anything - "look we employ women, there's even a woman of colour, and one that has claimed to be gender non-conforming".

Cheers,

Nigel

they were discussing it earlier (radio 4) and the guest admitted that while you can get bbc on the airwaves the license fee is unlikely to go away.
i propose the fee is still scrapped and they then start advertising on the bbc, and if you want the version with no ads you move to the internet and pay your subscription.
as usual the bbc are using any excuse to keep forcing us to pay.
 

RBZ5416

Distinguished Member
The issue of bias seems to now be conflated with "They don't agree with my views." Something the world of social media has helped to foster, where you can sit in a group of like minded individuals where nothing is questioned or challenged. Even in this very thread & on this very page the BBC is accused of being biased towards the left & right. Which seems to indicate to me that they probably are indeed somewhere in the middle.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Not really. Let's assume the BBC is biased 70% to the left.

Those on the right will point out this bias.

The left might take the view it isn't biased enough or the 30% bias is still too much.

Because both sides point out bias it doesn't mean it's in the centre.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
I really don't believe what the BBC have just come out with.
Talk about using the most common tactic there has ever been.
And if anything, this should be the end of the fee simply by lowering itself to such a level in a last ditch attempt.

1: "A diminished BBC is a weakened United Kingdom.”

2: "Would result in big cuts to its children’s output that would potentially spell the end of dedicated channels such as CBeebies and CBBC in their present form."

How pathetic a scare tactic to use, to say, changing to a subscription model would mean the main Children's output could be the ended.

Really BBC, you use the Children will suffer tactic!
Nothing else you could cut 1st eh? Use the media to say it will harm children.

Vile and Disgusting tactic by the BBC Chairman :mad:
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Yep, utter tosh.

If they want to briefly employ my services for a small fee, I will streamline the BBC in just a few short days.

First thing gone is Eastenders and the entire cast. That's a sh*tload of savings right there.

And Mrs. Brown's Boys - you can all pick up your P45's at the door on your way out.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Their argument is amazingly dumb.

The BBC is loved by most people, and most people agree it represents amazing value for money.
However, we will not be able to carry on if it's decriminalized and people are not forced to pay for it. :facepalm:
 

Glostarz

Active Member
How pathetic a scare tactic to use, to say, changing to a subscription model would mean the main Children's output could be the ended.

Really BBC, you use the Children will suffer tactic!
Nothing else you could cut 1st eh?
I think the suggestion is that more than just CBeebies would be hit by this, but online media have applied their usual brand of drama just to get people pissed off!

I think what is being said is that if the BBC moves to a subscription system, then kids TV will most likely suffer because of the grip that platforms like Netflix & Prime already hold in that market. Plus with Disney+ launching soon in the uk, parents aren’t going to want to pay for multiple subs to services.

What might be a likely scenario for the BBC in the future is to cut down on channels in uk, so maybe axe all digital channels and only have BBC One & Two. Use them for live event coverage and sports and then use BBC Studios to fund commissioned programmes with commercial fees, and sell that content to ITV, Channel 4 etc...

So people will still get the BBC programmes they like to watch, but just have to watch them on other broadcasters channels and with commercials.
 

outoftheknow

Distinguished Member
The words from board members at the BBC explain the problem perfectly. They can’t see past the way the current revenue stream is achieved. They dismiss alternatives as discussed here to fund themselves so they depart to stating they can’t survive with the current funding model.

This avoids decisions like cutting salary costs and maintaining the same services (which they can do regardless of the inertia in doing it) under the current model.

mid they tackled the issue from the inside they wouldn’t need to justify the model. This thread wouldn’t exisit and the number of people pissed off with the Beeb would be a minority they could manage like adults without standing atop an ivory tower the public has paid for and which serves no purpose in the service they are paid to provide. Except give them an ivory tower to keep them aloft from the plebs - who pay for them to be there.


End rant - yet again I am glad I moved over here :) We have a public broadcaster and they have a digital kids TV channel no worries. It even broadcasts when kids are supposed to awake from 6 am to about 7pm I think and then they use it for comedy. We also have those new fangled streamed and satellite kids channels but because we fund the public broadcaster via (Income) tax revenue, the broadcaster isn’t competing for market share. All they need to do is provide decent quality programs and the taxpayer regardless of income is generally happy with value for money. Less income most happy as they don’t pay much if any tax :)
 

ldoodle

Distinguished Member
Their argument is amazingly dumb.

The BBC is loved by most people, and most people agree it represents amazing value for money.
However, we will not be able to carry on if it's decriminalized and people are not forced to pay for it. :facepalm:
They suckered the Government last time, so will probably again!

"The Government is therefore committed to ensuring the BBC continues to deliver high quality, distinctive content for all audiences. That is why we have guaranteed the licence fee level will increase with inflation until 2022."

I know it's subjective, but they totally failed on the first paragraph as far as I am concerned. It might very be good value for a lot of people, but it's the "well everyone must love us then so we'll force them all to pay" attitude that fudges me off!
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member

Goooner

Distinguished Member
So long as it’s a subscription to watch BBC and not a subscription to watch live tv, I’m fine with that.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Never mind waiting until 2027, how about action this day?

Give the BBC three months notice then bin the licence fee. I have no doubt whatsoever that with such a plethora of talent, they will weather the storm.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
I don't think is going to happen.

What I'm guessing is going to happen is, they will feel it's too much of a change too fast.
They will buckle and simply change the law to make is no longer a imprisonable offence in law to not pay for viewing live TV, and change it to (do they class it as a civil matter?) whereby it's a fineable offence instead.

They will then regard this as the 1st step, and will see how this goes.

Then in X years they will take another look at it, and see if further change needs to be considered.
They will say, it will be impossible to so quickly change the current model, and it would cause too much damage to go down that route in a single step.

That's what I think is actually going to happen for now.

The BBC has to many friends in high places, all the Lovies, and OMG think of the Children all their programs will have to be axed, and the BBC News everyone relies on for the truth will be wrecked!

I'd like to be wrong, but I'm thinking this is going to be the outcome.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
"scrap the licence fee and make viewers pay a subscription"
So long as it’s a subscription to watch BBC and not a subscription to watch live tv, I’m fine with that.
Great in principle and I'm all for it but in reality I can't see it working.

BBC currently get around £4bn from the licence fee which they claim isn't enough.

Netflix is very successful in the UK and attracts 9.5 million subscribers.

Let's say that that the BBC could attract a similar number, call it 10 million. I doubt very much they would get that take up for just the BBC TV channels, not sure how BritBox is doing, not seen any numbers but I bet it isn't great. But let's be ultra generous and say 10 million subscribers.

So to maintain the current level of funding they need

£4bn/10mn per year = £400 per year = £33 per month.

There is no way that many people would pay £33 per month for just the BBC TV service.

One problem is that the BBC also has radio, the website, news services, world service, education. I suppose you could strip those down to the essential, maybe cover them with normal tax money, leaving the subscription just to cover the TV channels.. TV currently gets around 55% of the licence fee money which would bring the monthly subscription required down to

£18 per month.

Then you could talk about advertising but the likes of Amazon and Netflix don't really have adverts.

Maybe if you trimmed everything down you could get the subscription down to £10 per month but who would pay that for a pared down budget service - not 10,000,000 subscribers that's for sure.

In the meantime this is the sort of inaccurate biased rubbish that we are paying for with our licence fee


Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
In the meantime this is the sort of inaccurate biased rubbish that we are paying for with our licence fee


Cheers,

Nigel
I was watching that article getting a savaging last night.


The article seems to have missed the point that beyond the BBC, everything is money led. Do a bad film, TV series, West End Musical, whatever, it bombs.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Great in principle and I'm all for it but in reality I can't see it working.

BBC currently get around £4bn from the licence fee which they claim isn't enough.

Netflix is very successful in the UK and attracts 9.5 million subscribers.

Let's say that that the BBC could attract a similar number, call it 10 million. I doubt very much they would get that take up for just the BBC TV channels, not sure how BritBox is doing, not seen any numbers but I bet it isn't great. But let's be ultra generous and say 10 million subscribers.

So to maintain the current level of funding they need

£4bn/10mn per year = £400 per year = £33 per month.

There is no way that many people would pay £33 per month for just the BBC TV service.

One problem is that the BBC also has radio, the website, news services, world service, education. I suppose you could strip those down to the essential, maybe cover them with normal tax money, leaving the subscription just to cover the TV channels.. TV currently gets around 55% of the licence fee money which would bring the monthly subscription required down to

£18 per month.

Then you could talk about advertising but the likes of Amazon and Netflix don't really have adverts.

Maybe if you trimmed everything down you could get the subscription down to £10 per month but who would pay that for a pared down budget service - not 10,000,000 subscribers that's for sure.

In the meantime this is the sort of inaccurate biased rubbish that we are paying for with our licence fee


Cheers,

Nigel
Are you not forgetting one MAJOR point here.

With a subscription model the BBC could offer subscriptions to every country around the world.

Netflix now has 158.3 million subscribers globally. The company's stock went up as much as 10% in after hours trading. The service said it expects to add another 7.6 million subscribers in the next quarter.16 Oct 2019

So, how much would the BBC need to charge "Globally" for subscriptions to maintain it's current income?
That's a great benefit of a modern subscription service with the Internet, as Netflix and Amazon do.
You are no longer tied to a single country.

This point alone should be enough to show a simple subscription service is an easy win for the BBC is they wanted to implement it.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
Are you not forgetting one MAJOR point here.

With a subscription model the BBC could offer subscriptions to every country around the world.
They are already doing that, for example, Britbox and BBC America. Plus they sell programming too.

This is on top of the licence fee, so they would expect the revenue that they get today from those sort of things in any total subscription model.

There is some very good BBC programming that would appeal worldwide and I suspect that they are already selling those. But for the most part of the BBC programming has a very British bent which limits its appeal to the rest of the world. Sure you will get ex-pats and anglophiles but that is not enough to sustain a business.

Cheers,

Nigel
 

BrightonChris

Distinguished Member
They already sell license funded content around the world as part of their commercial arm 'BBC Worldwide' which makes a sham of the whole principle in the first place
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

High End Munich 2020 Hi-Fi Show cancelled
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung leads global TV market for 14th straight year
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Apple wireless home cinema audio hinted by patent?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung and BT deliver UK’s first live 8K sports broadcast
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins confirms corporate changes
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom