BBC Licence Fee to go in 2027

Danny1969

I think there's a big different between providing an essential service like the emergency services, refuse collection etc and an entertainment service. 
We should be allowed to choose what entertainment we wish to pay for and not feel bullied into buying a license for something we don't use. 

Here's an idea .... if the BBC content really is that good and worth every penny then make it a subscription service, so you need to create a paid  account to view it. Like Prime and Netflix etc. 

That way all the people who love it can still have it and those whose don't won't end up with any chance of a criminal record for not paying for something they don't want. 

Offset

Kittyfrisk said:

bertie said:

fretmeister said:

bertie said:

fretmeister said:

it but still demanding that the FB came round and sorted it out.

but if they didnt,   Ron Wood

Am I too young to get that?

no just too stupid       LOL   

Ron Wood, The Move,  Fire brigade 

Or even ROY Wood 

Love it! :-)

tanihhiavlt

Typical Beeb - in 2008 Tim Berners Lee was invited to speak at a townhall - the first thing he says:

"I've got to say, the licensing model simply doesn't work - you need to change it before you lose it"

2008 ... and when he said it half the audience in the room knew he was right... the other half were journalists and too busy pondering where to mention they'd seen Tim Berners Lee.

The license also pays for:

Radio 1
Radio 2 
Radio 3
Radio 4
Five Live 
1xtra 
The Proms 
Various classical performances
Various sessions by famous artists
Some sports events
Royal Institute Lectures

The news is just dire, the weather is less accurate than The Met (more weather stations reporting to them), it used to be an incubator for talent, it isn't so much now.

The Reithian principles are "to educate, entertain and inform" - they can't leave it all to David Attenborough to do can they? 

DefaultM

I've not said to disband the actual BBC anyway. It's just that as you say, the alternative they come up with will be so shit that it ends up being forced to do so.

Kittyfrisk

Can someone start a petition for a Royal Family by subscription so that I don’t have to pay? I never use them.

DefaultM

"You might be watching I Player" is another. Well I'm not. It's not my fault you've set it up so that even if you're not paying for it you can still access it. What's that all about? Some kind of honour system, but with the risk of a £1000 fine and a jail sentence? 

munckee

Kittyfrisk said:

Can someone start a petition for a Royal Family by subscription so that I don’t have to pay? I never use them.

I think you are entitled to some jewels/swag as part of their licensing agreement, just pick a palace and take what you like.  

steveledzep

Roy Wood...stupid 

RocknRollDave

Danny1969 said:

I think there's a big different between providing an essential service like the emergency services, refuse collection etc and an entertainment service. 
We should be allowed to choose what entertainment we wish to pay for and not feel bullied into buying a license for something we don't use. 

Here's an idea .... if the BBC content really is that good and worth every penny then make it a subscription service, so you need to create a paid  account to view it. Like Prime and Netflix etc. 

That way all the people who love it can still have it and those whose don't won't end up with any chance of a criminal record for not paying for something they don't want. 

This, I would imagine, is where things are heading.

But would this model bring in enough revenue to maintain the BBC's current output? The suggestion appears to be that it would not, and in which case, what would be jettisoned? It's going to be the stuff that is very difficult to find elsewhere, isn't it? Things like Welsh-language programming, some of the niche sporting coverage...do any of the other big hitters have sign-language for news programmes etc. 

It's hard to talk about this kind of programming without sounding very condescending and "white knight syndrome" about it, but there's definitely a debate to be had about how and why the BBC is something very different to Prime and Netflix, rightly or wrongly.

jonnyburgo

I watch bbc4 mostly and listen to 6music but only occasionally, I hate terrestrial TV though its become more like American TV, shit tons of reality shows that are cheap to make. I hate adverts though with a passion, watching a movie with 5 minutes of ads every 15 minutes is bloody ridiculous, makes a movie unwatchable. I'm sure there weren't that many ad breaks when I was a kid. 

crunchman

Danny1969 said:

I think there's a big different between providing an essential service like the emergency services, refuse collection etc and an entertainment service. 
We should be allowed to choose what entertainment we wish to pay for and not feel bullied into buying a license for something we don't use. 

Here's an idea .... if the BBC content really is that good and worth every penny then make it a subscription service, so you need to create a paid  account to view it. Like Prime and Netflix etc. 

That way all the people who love it can still have it and those whose don't won't end up with any chance of a criminal record for not paying for something they don't want. 

If you don't want it, don't pay.

These days there are a lot of households who don't watch live TV and don't bother with a license.  It's not like it was 20 years ago.

The thing that is wrong is that I need a TV license to watch live sport from Sky Sports on my TV even if I don't use the BBC at all.  We do watch quite a lot of BBC stuff, so that point is academic for me, but it's still wrong that you have to pay a BBC license fee to watch Sky Sports.

exocet

Picking up on a couple of points raised in this thread.

Fire Service - this used to be private. Households that paid the fee had a metal license plate attached to the front of their house. No plate - no service. 

BBC subscription. Basically the country needs to complete its broadband rollout in order to switch off the terrestrial signal. The whole Freeview platform was not designed for conditional access - ITV tried this with ITV Digital back in late 90s / 00s - anyone remember that.... I don't think Satellite is viewed as a viable platform to expand because it doesn't offer video on demand - Netflix could never have got off the ground via Satellite.

At the moment, the BBC is bound by statute to supply a universal service (accessible by everyone in UK without any encryption etc). So it can't change the model without being released from that obligation. 

The BBC don't threaten court action / prison. That whole thing has been outsourced to various agencies for as long as I can remember. Pretty sure that The Post Office ran it once...along with the fleet of "detector vans"..

When all is said and done it exists like it does because of its funding model. You pick it apart and it literally falls apart. Growing numbers of people don't want to pay. Personally I don't think it matters what it costs - its tge principle of paying for a service that you don't use that's the issue - make it  an obligatory £5 a month and the same detractors will still complain. 

It'll ensure up being state funded for a while - propped up by licensing back catalogue via other platforms. 

What happens to UK Media capacity and control will ultimately be dictated by government policy I.e regulation. I don't want to see UK Media subsumed into US Behemoths but I'm not confident that this won't happen within 20 years.

exocet

jonnyburgo said:

I'm sure there weren't that many ad breaks when I was a kid. 

I don't know for  sure but I suspect that you are correct. This used to be strictly controlled and was part of the license terms (not TV License rather the license to run an Independent TV Broadcast company like it used to be when there were loads of different companies...ATV, Granada, Thames etc).

Increased ads per hour is a sign of declining revenues (driven by lower audiences / many alternative digital ad platforms that now exist).

UK "ITV" used to be pretty reasonable for watching a movie. I lived in Australia for a year in 1993 - ads were shown every 8 minutes. Films were unwatchable.

Can't see much of a future in quality content via ad revenue based channel.

Danny1969

Kittyfrisk said:

Can someone start a petition for a Royal Family by subscription so that I don’t have to pay? I never use them.

I think the Royal Family actually bring more money into the pot then they consume, so we probably pay a tiny bit less tax as a result. So they get a pass from me
I don't think the BBC quite manage to do this 

Danny1969

exocet said:

Picking up on a couple of points raised in this thread.

Fire Service - this used to be private. Households that paid the fee had a metal license plate attached to the front of their house. No plate - no service. 

BBC subscription. Basically the country needs to complete its broadband rollout in order to switch off the terrestrial signal. The whole Freeview platform was not designed for conditional access - ITV tried this with ITV Digital back in late 90s / 00s - anyone remember that.... I don't think Satellite is viewed as a viable platform to expand because it doesn't offer video on demand - Netflix could never have got off the ground via Satellite.

At the moment, the BBC is bound by statute to supply a universal service (accessible by everyone in UK without any encryption etc). So it can't change the model without being released from that obligation. 

The BBC don't threaten court action / prison. That whole thing has been outsourced to various agencies for as long as I can remember. Pretty sure that The Post Office ran it once...along with the fleet of "detector vans"..

When all is said and done it exists like it does because of its funding model. You pick it apart and it literally falls apart. Growing numbers of people don't want to pay. Personally I don't think it matters what it costs - its tge principle of paying for a service that you don't use that's the issue - make it  an obligatory £5 a month and the same detractors will still complain. 

It'll ensure up being state funded for a while - propped up by licensing back catalogue via other platforms. 

What happens to UK Media capacity and control will ultimately be dictated by government policy I.e regulation. I don't want to see UK Media subsumed into US Behemoths but I'm not confident that this won't happen within 20 years.

The detector vans were basically fake. Although they had equipment that could detect the coils in the old style TV's it wasn't accurate enough to pin point anyone in a row of terraced houses. 
They basically relied on someone buying a TV and completing a form which was then passed on to them. If that person then didn't purchase a license then the detector van came round and nicked them. 

This is taken from the BBC's own website  

Currently, anyone who watches or records live TV or uses iPlayer without a TV licence is guilty of a criminal offence and could go to prison

I was taken to court twice by the license authority and fined. The 2nd time I missed payments, was arrested and kept in custody until the whole amount was paid. Had it not been I was going to Winchester prison for 2 weeks. This would have been about 94, 95 maybe. 

exocet

Danny1969 said:

Kittyfrisk said:

Can someone start a petition for a Royal Family by subscription so that I don’t have to pay? I never use them.

I think the Royal Family actually bring more money into the pot then they consume, so we probably pay a tiny bit less tax as a result. So they get a pass from me
I don't think the BBC quite manage to do this 

I think we'll be re-evaluating The Monarchy post Duke of York and once the Queen passes away.

monquixote

exocet said:

jonnyburgo said:

I'm sure there weren't that many ad breaks when I was a kid. 

I don't know for  sure but I suspect that you are correct. This used to be strictly controlled and was part of the license terms (not TV License rather the license to run an Independent TV Broadcast company like it used to be when there were loads of different companies...ATV, Granada, Thames etc).

Increased ads per hour is a sign of declining revenues (driven by lower audiences / many alternative digital ad platforms that now exist).

UK "ITV" used to be pretty reasonable for watching a movie. I lived in Australia for a year in 1993 - ads were shown every 8 minutes. Films were unwatchable.

Can't see much of a future in quality content via ad revenue based channel.

There are still very strict rules about ads.

Tom Scott did a good video about it a while back

randella

exocet said:

UK "ITV" used to be pretty reasonable for watching a movie. I lived in Australia for a year in 1993 - ads were shown every 8 minutes. Films were unwatchable.

Australian TV is dismal. Channel 7 were the worst offenders for that - a film would start on Sunday night and they'd lull you into a false sense of security by waiting a while for the first ad break. By the end they were ramped up to the point that it was like some sort of SAS concentration test just to watch bloody Die Hard.

There's a reason an episode of Neighbours is only 20 minutes long - adverts, opening credits, adverts, seven minutes of the program, more adverts, program, adverts, closing credits, adverts.

The only thing going for any of it was the international cricket on Nine.

The ads were shit too. Rum-looking blokes shouting at you about cut-price rugs.

It should be a litmus test - anyone advocating the end of the TV licence can live with only Seven, Nine, Ten, ABC, and SBS for a year. Six months and you'd be crawling across glass with the 159 quid in your hand

crunchman

US broadcast TV is dreadful as well.  For all the moaning about the BBC, we don't know how well off we are here.

EricTheWeary

monquixote said:

exocet said:

jonnyburgo said:

I'm sure there weren't that many ad breaks when I was a kid. 

I don't know for  sure but I suspect that you are correct. This used to be strictly controlled and was part of the license terms (not TV License rather the license to run an Independent TV Broadcast company like it used to be when there were loads of different companies...ATV, Granada, Thames etc).

Increased ads per hour is a sign of declining revenues (driven by lower audiences / many alternative digital ad platforms that now exist).

UK "ITV" used to be pretty reasonable for watching a movie. I lived in Australia for a year in 1993 - ads were shown every 8 minutes. Films were unwatchable.

Can't see much of a future in quality content via ad revenue based channel.

There are still very strict rules about ads.

Tom Scott did a good video about it a while back

The amount of ads allowed on different types of channels is different IIRC so fewer on ITV and C4 than the ‘digital’ channels although I think this doesn’t include trailers which all channels seem to have incessantly now.