BBC Licence Fee to go in 2027

CaseOfAce

vasselmeyer said:

CaseOfAce said:

err... what's wrong with "white people" Monquixote ?!
When did this become a derogatory term?!

Don't be a dick. That's not what he said and well you know it.

thanks for the insult. 
Social media eh?

Re-reading Monoquixote's post he's quite right to say..

They are also required to produce programming that appeals to everyone, but unfortunately the audience is overwhelmingly white and old (and getting older every year) which is why they create things like 1Xtra, BBC3 etc which often don't workout well. 

fair point.

but

that It also unfortunately this leads to a model where everyone is paying a tax to subsidise old, white people to watch TV. 

erm..? that's a bit clumsy.

anyway Monoquixote - from what I've read here - he's an intelligent chap - I enjoy and learn from the comments he's posted (as I have from others). It's why I come to this site.

Moving on...

monquixote

CaseOfAce said:

vasselmeyer said:

CaseOfAce said:

err... what's wrong with "white people" Monquixote ?!
When did this become a derogatory term?!

Don't be a dick. That's not what he said and well you know it.

thanks for the insult. 
Social media eh?

Re-reading Monoquixote's post he's quite right to say..

They are also required to produce programming that appeals to everyone, but unfortunately the audience is overwhelmingly white and old (and getting older every year) which is why they create things like 1Xtra, BBC3 etc which often don't workout well. 

fair point.

but

that It also unfortunately this leads to a model where everyone is paying a tax to subsidise old, white people to watch TV. 

erm..? that's a bit clumsy.

anyway Monoquixote - from what I've read here - he's an intelligent chap - I enjoy and learn from some of the comments he's posted (as I have from others). It's why I come to this site.

Moving on...

To clarify it's quite hard to have a mandatory levy on everyone who consumes TV which is paid for by everyone, but is only consumed by a minority, especially when that minority is a well served and privileged minority. 

It's not being derogatory vs white people. It's the same if there was some special benefit paid to software engineers, or lawyers that everyone had to contribute to. It wouldn't seem fair. 

chillidoggy

Jalapeno said:

chillidoggy said:

These days, I only watch iPlayer from the BBC, but despite the best efforts of Zoe Ball and Lisa Tarbuck, I also listen to BBC Radio. I ask myself whether it's worth the licence fee, and during the year I would probably say yes. Until the demand for payment arrives once again.

On the subject of their reporting, I think all reporting is subjective. The BBC may appear to have an anti-Tory bias but I suspect it's more of an antigovernmental bias and thus wouldn't alter whichever flavour of government was in power.

I too, feel a cable-only, or Internet-based TV, is the most likely outcome in the longer term, and speaking as one who hasn't been able to receive a decent terrestrial analogue or digital TV signal for the last 22 years, it cannot come too soon.

You still need a TV licence to watch iPlayer

I know that.

Jalapeno

monquixote said:

To clarify it's quite hard to have a mandatory levy on everyone who consumes TV which is paid for by everyone, but is only consumed by a minority, especially when that minority is a well served and privileged minority.

Crikey, you'll be saying the same for Opera and Ballet next !

Hurling_Fruitmig

monquixote said:

This means they can't do what people like ITV do and focus all their efforts on the demographic that gives the best return on investment.

What that translates to in my head is yet another channel filled with "if you liked X, you'll love Y. Which is why we should all be concerned about its impending demise.

This doesn't just apply to the future of the BBC. As musicians I'm sure we've all spent money on stuff which we think is fantastic, but might be considered pointless, useless or worthless to anyone else. Popularity and the bottom line isn't and shouldn't be the be all and end all.

We seem to be becoming a society obsessed with the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

monquixote

Jalapeno said:

monquixote said:

To clarify it's quite hard to have a mandatory levy on everyone who consumes TV which is paid for by everyone, but is only consumed by a minority, especially when that minority is a well served and privileged minority.

Crikey, you'll be saying the same for Opera and Ballet next !

This is the criticism that is often made by Americans about the government, or national lottery funding the arts. It's the poor subsidising the rich. 

RocknRollDave

monquixote said:

A few things people don't usually realise: (I previously worked at the BBC and in the field of audience measurement)

A lot of whet the BBC does quite deliberately isn't commercially viable (Local news, educational programming, religious programming, welsh, gaelic services etc), and they are required to fill those gaps as part of their remit.

They are also required to produce programming that appeals to everyone, but unfortunately the audience is overwhelmingly white and old (and getting older every year) which is why they create things like 1Xtra, BBC3 etc which often don't workout well. 

This means they can't do what people like ITV do and focus all their efforts on the demographic that gives the best return on investment.

It also unfortunately this leads to a model where everyone is paying a tax to subsidise old, white people to watch TV. 

As a result a "Make BBC like Netflix" approach can't work unless the requirements that make it unique and useful are removed. 

The only model I can see being practical is pairing it down to just news, education etc and have that paid for with direct taxation and then have the remaining services be on a subscription, or ad supported model.

Regarding bias, I can only say what it was like 15 years plus ago, but because it doesn't pay very well, but it's considered prestigious to work there the BBC tends to appeal to liberals who went to private school and it has a massive bias in that direction in terms of the demographics. I think they do try very hard to be balanced, but I think the makeup of the staff does shine through. I wouldn't call it so much "woke" as trying to be "worthy".

Very interesting post this.  
It would be a huge loss if those "deliberately not commercially viable" services were reduced or done away with, but what motivation would the BBC have to continue them, if they were to become just another commercial subscription service, rather than continuing to bear the unique responsibility that they have historically shouldered*?

Do we just end up with an extension of BritBox, which, as far as I can tell, is basically just repeats of British TV shows?

(*however pompous you may/ may not view that role and however rightly or wrongly you view it that they have ever shouldered it.)

crunchman

monquixote said:

A few things people don't usually realise: (I previously worked at the BBC and in the field of audience measurement)

A lot of whet the BBC does quite deliberately isn't commercially viable (Local news, educational programming, religious programming, welsh, gaelic services etc), and they are required to fill those gaps as part of their remit.

They are also required to produce programming that appeals to everyone, but unfortunately the audience is overwhelmingly white and old (and getting older every year) which is why they create things like 1Xtra, BBC3 etc which often don't workout well. 

This means they can't do what people like ITV do and focus all their efforts on the demographic that gives the best return on investment.

It also unfortunately this leads to a model where everyone is paying a tax to subsidise old, white people to watch TV. 

As a result a "Make BBC like Netflix" approach can't work unless the requirements that make it unique and useful are removed. 

The only model I can see being practical is pairing it down to just news, education etc and have that paid for with direct taxation and then have the remaining services be on a subscription, or ad supported model.

Regarding bias, I can only say what it was like 15 years plus ago, but because it doesn't pay very well, but it's considered prestigious to work there the BBC tends to appeal to liberals who went to private school and it has a massive bias in that direction in terms of the demographics. I think they do try very hard to be balanced, but I think the makeup of the staff does shine through. I wouldn't call it so much "woke" as trying to be "worthy".

It's not just for old people.  The kids stuff is good.  My 10 year old watches a lot of it.

She doesn't consume it on linear TV.  She binge watches it on iPlayer, but she does watch a lot of BBC content.  Some of it isn't great, but Horrible Histories is genius.

There are things I have problems with.  Why have the Wimbledon yawnfest on both channels at the same time.  Just show it on one channel and if someone wants to watch a different match let them do it online, and let me watch Pointless while I eat.

The biggest problem is their news output though.  I know the word woke is overused at the moment, but it's the only way to describe their viewpoint and slant on the news.  They might not be too badly biased in a traditional left/right economic sense, but that liberal world view you mentioned does come through very strongly.  I would go so far to call it woke rather than worthy.  That creates an environment for GB News to try to create a British version of Fox News, because the Beeb is alienating a large section of the population.

There are other major problems with the news that have been mentioned in this thread.  The sensationalist click bait headlines that we have seen during the pandemic have been appalling.  That often goes along with uncritical parrotting of massively exagerrated SAGE numbers that appear to have been generated by Diane Abbot.  Those numbers generate the ridiculous headlines.  They need someone to do some sense checking before they uncritically spout those numbers.

I've seen errors in other news stories on their website as well.  They seem to have a bunch of mathematical/technical illiterates writing on there.  I've seen stuff written that is just wrong.  I'm guessing that their journalists all did subjects like English at A level, and then went to University to study journalism.  They have no maths/science/technical knowledge beyond GCSE, and it shows.  They write utter drivel at times.  Regardless of where you stand on the wokeness issue, the quality of their news output has gone through the floor recently.

It's the news output that is causing almost all the problems for them, and they need to fix it urgently.

Kittyfrisk

I started replying last night but realised I was so wound up by the subject that it was better to scrap it 

 Anyway @vasselmeyer  & @monquixote have articulated my views far more eloquently than I would have.
 
Apart from 'The Green Planet' I cannot remember the last time I watched anything on BBC1 or 2.
It's all about so called 'celeb's' dancing, cooking, skating etc; antiques & house valuations/makeovers; 'Period dramas' & soaps like Eastenders, Casualty, plus Mrs. Browns Boys, Michael Mckintire, Dragon's Den, The Apprentice, The Wall, Stacey Dooley etc.
Utter dross (IMO) although my 90 year old mum does disagree 

BBC3 was different & lively when it was there & hopefully it will be again when it returns.
BBC4 still has it's moments, but is effectively is just a home for the more 'intellectually worthy' arts & science stuff that BBC2 used to host years ago.

I mainly listen to radio, usually 4 & 6 Music or Internet radio.
The BBC website is becoming increasingly dumbed down & filled with clickbait links to 'entertainment' stories that have little or nothing to do with News & everything to do with filling spaces with visual chatter & trivial content.

Given how little I use the services & all my stated criticisms, I should be kicking off about the TV license fee, but I really don't mind it.
The BBC generally is excellent value for money & is far more of an intangible UK asset than most people ever see.
For example the World Service is something that I don't often listen to, but which I know is hugely influential in the wider world.
The BBC is far from perfect, but without it, things will be far worse than people imagine.

Now if producers can get rid of the annoying incidental 'mood' music that appears at every pause in radio programmes, I'll be much happier. People are capable of interpreting a silent pause in a conversation as a change in direction or topic, without it being telegraphed by a jingle... 

wesker123

Conflicted about BBC going to subscription /ending licence fee.
I agree licence fee is outdated but is this another case of not knowing what you've got 'til it's gone?
UK Government want flags and statues everywhere, rule Britannia etc but want to hurt BBC. 

bertie

Apart from 'The Green Planet' I cannot remember the last time I watched anything on BBC1 or 2.
It's all about so called 'celeb's' dancing, cooking, skating etc; antiques & house valuations/makeovers; 'Period dramas' & soaps like Eastenders, Casualty, plus Mrs. Browns Boys, Michael Mckintire, Dragon's Den, The Apprentice, The Wall, Stacey Dooley etc.
Utter dross (IMO) although my 90 year old mum does disagree 

not watch Killing Eve then ?

Clecko

I like to check if people think the BBC should be defunded/abolished and particularly if they feel that Eastenders isn't worth the money as part of the process of deciding whether they're worth my time and attention. 

guitargeek62

Jalapeno said:

Licence payments are down 750k/yr, it's unsustainable - something else needed.

That seems surprisingly low

axisus

Gulliver said:

BBC 1
BBC 2
BBC 3
BBC 4
CBBC

CBeebies

BBC News 24

BBC Parliament

BBC Alba

BBC World Service

Radio 1
Radio 1 Extra
Radio 2
Radio 3
Radio 4
Radio 4 Extra
Radio 5
Radio 6
BBC Radio Asian Network
Every Local BBC Radio Station

BBC News Website

BBC Sounds Podcasts
BBC iPlayer

BBC Bitesize
Plus a bunch more I can't think of off the top of my head.

For just over £3 a week.


If you don't think that's value for money you're a fucking idiot.

It's not a question of value, it's a question of WHAT INTERESTS YOU. I have no interest in anything there.

Likewise, a ten ton vat of peanut butter for 50 quid is great value but of no use at all to me (assuming that you could not resell it). 

fretmeister

If CBeebies goes parents will riot.

vasselmeyer

axisus said:

Gulliver said:

BBC 1
BBC 2
BBC 3
BBC 4
CBBC

CBeebies

BBC News 24

BBC Parliament

BBC Alba

BBC World Service

Radio 1
Radio 1 Extra
Radio 2
Radio 3
Radio 4
Radio 4 Extra
Radio 5
Radio 6
BBC Radio Asian Network
Every Local BBC Radio Station

BBC News Website

BBC Sounds Podcasts
BBC iPlayer

BBC Bitesize
Plus a bunch more I can't think of off the top of my head.

For just over £3 a week.


If you don't think that's value for money you're a fucking idiot.

It's not a question of value, it's a question of WHAT INTERESTS YOU. I have no interest in anything there.

Likewise, a ten ton vat of peanut butter for 50 quid is great value but of no use at all to me (assuming that you could not resell it). 

You mean you don’t watch and listen to EVERY SINGLE THING the BBC puts out? You know who else that applies to?

Everyone.

That's a particularly foolish argument akin to removing other services that you might not have cause to use but benefit everyone. I assume you haven't had a fire in your house put out or needed to be cut from a car, so lets get rid of the fire brigade shall we?

Jalapeno

guitargeek62 said:

Jalapeno said:

Licence payments are down 750k/yr, it's unsustainable - something else needed.

That seems surprisingly low

Down BY .....

Danny1969

I nearly went to prison once in the early nineties down to the TV license. We used to have a TV on all the time, no license but a video hooked up to it and the kids used to watch Postman Pat and Tot's TV. I was done for no TV license (despite having no arial hooked up) and fined for the 2nd time. Due to being skint all the time I went a couple of months without paying the fine instalment. Got pulled over in my car, Old bill realised there was a warrant out for my arrest due to non payment of fine and I was put in the cells overnight to be taken to Winchester nick the next day. Luckily the guy who used to FOH for the band I was in paid my fine outright in time and they released me. 

I don't know if it's still a criminal offence to not have a license but it will be a mute point if they scrap the license I spose. Every dog has it's day and the BBC is a tired old dog indeed. I would rather give my money to YT

Kittyfrisk

bertie said:

Apart from 'The Green Planet' I cannot remember the last time I watched anything on BBC1 or 2.
It's all about so called 'celeb's' dancing, cooking, skating etc; antiques & house valuations/makeovers; 'Period dramas' & soaps like Eastenders, Casualty, plus Mrs. Browns Boys, Michael Mckintire, Dragon's Den, The Apprentice, The Wall, Stacey Dooley etc.
Utter dross (IMO) although my 90 year old mum does disagree 

not watch Killing Eve then ?


No, I didn't care for the initial pitch & I'm glad I didn't, as the multiple 'Seasons' disease took hold, so the watching is almost never ending or else risk 'fear of missing out' . Season 4 is confirmed... yawn.

fretmeister

Bearing in mind this is Dorries..

I will bet a shiny pound that in 2027 (if they are still in power) the "Licence Fee To the BBC" will go, but instead there will be an "anti-piracy Television ownership annual fee" instead.

Then we lose the BBC and we still get to pay for using a telly.